Skip to main content

Full text of "Immigration restriction : a study of the opposition to and regulation of immigration into the United States"

See other formats

— f 






MACMILLAN & CO.. Limited 












All rights reserved Cl 

Copyright, 1927, 

Bt the macmillan company. 

Set up and printed. 
Published August, 1927. 



Printed in the United States of America by 





The United States of America, ? nation great in all things, 
is ours today. To whom will it belong tomorrow? 

Many years ago our people, proud of their institutions, 
ambitious, hopeful, altruistic and sympathetic, entertained 
the thought that their country was destined by an all-wise 
Providence to serve as the world's great harbor of refuge to 
which the ill-circumstanced of all nations might repair. 
The myth of the melting pot grew and flourished. With 
little or no discrimination we took unto ourselves the blood 
of all classes and all climes, all races and all religions. Our 
land was new. It needed development. We yearned for 
growth in things material. Counting not the ultimate cost, 
we invited all to come to help us build our houses and our 
highways, to help us dig our coal and iron and gold, to help 
us hew and plant and fabricate. 

The result is too well known to require extensive com- 
ment. Millions came. Today, instead of a well-knit 
homogenous citizenry, we have a body politic made up of 
all and every diverse element. Today, instead of a nation 
descended from generations of freemen bred to a knowledge 
of the principles and practices of self-government, of lib- 
erty under law, we have a heterogeneous population no 
small proportion of which is sprung from races that, 
throughout the centuries, have known no liberty at all, and 
no law save the decrees of overlords and princes. In other 
words, our capacity to maintain our cherished institutions 
stands diluted by a stream of alien blood, with all its 
inherited misconceptions respecting the relationships of the 
governing power to the governed. 

It is out of an appreciation of this fundamental fact, 
vague at first, but later grown firm and substantial, that the 




American people have come to sanction — indeed to de- 
mand — reform of our immigration laws. They have seen, 
patent and plain, the encroachments of the foreign-born 
flood upon their own lives. They have come to realize that 
such a flood, affecting as it does every individual of what- 
ever race or origin, can not fail likewise to affect the institu- 
tions which have made and preserved American liberties. 
It is no wonder, therefore, that the myth of the melting pot 
has been discredited. It is no wonder that Americans every- 
where are insisting that their land no longer shall offer free 
and unrestricted asylum to the rest of the world. 

The United States is our land. If it was not the land of 
our fathers, at least it may be, and it should be, the land of 
our children. We intend to maintain it so. The day of un- 
alloyed welcome to all peoples, the day of indiscriminate 
acceptance of all races, has definitely ended. 

Albert Johnson, 

Chairman, Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of 
Representatives, Washington, D. C. 


No field of modern discussion has been so marred by 
prejudice as the immigration problem. Blood has been not 
only thicker than water but more compelling than the cooler 
processes of thought. The average man has thought of the 
immigration problem in terms of himself or of his immediate 
ancestry. Although all Americans, except the Indians, are 
in a sense immigrants, yet from the first years of our gov- 
ernment to the present hour, those who have been prior in 
point of time have looked with no little misgivings on the 
stream of immigrants that have followed them. Race prej- 
udice has too often controlled legislation tow^ards the new 
comers. But, on the other hand, the policy of the wide open 
door has sometimes been carried to the point where it 
seemed to careful observers that the distinctively American 
spirit in community life, in government, in industry, might 
be jeopardized. 

The most amazing thing about the immigration problem 
is the likeness of the arguments of one generation to the 
contentions of another. The points of view and prejudices 
of many sons are like unto their fathers'. Here, as in other 
enduring issues, there seems to be no new thing under the 
sun. How important, then, is the task of every citizen to 
think through the immigration question for himself, to free 
himself from bias, to seek only the truth ! The great debates 
and changes in the immigration policy in the past illuminate 
the future; it is rank folly to attempt the solution of the 
problem in 1927 by century-old prejudices and to ignore the 
history of the attempts that have been made to deal fairly 
with ourselves and with the strangers knocking at our gates. 

A study of the development of the opposition to immi- 
gration into this country is a continuous illustration of the 




principle set forth by Dicey that in even the most demo- 
cratic countries "the opinion which changes the law is in 
one sense the opinion of the time when the law is actually 
altered; in another sense it has often been — the opinion 
prevalent some twenty or thirty years before that time; it 
has been as often as not in reality the opinion not of to-day, 
but of yesterday." ^ 

Many persons believe that the opposition to immigration 
is a thing of recent years. Yet as one seeks for the origin 
of the opposition to immigration, it is necessary to go fur- 
ther and further back into our history, even to early colonial 
days. There we find the colonists with hostile feelings to- 
ward the immigrants who were entering, while a bitter 
opposition found expression in colonial laws against certain 
undesirable classes, especially against paupers, criminals, 
the indentured classes and against certain religious sects, 
especially the Catholics. From those earliest days to the 
present time there has been a developing opposition to 
immigration, greater at some periods in our history than at 
other periods, yet always in evidence. Frequently it failed 
to result in legislation. Yet the arguments grew stronger 
and the demand for restriction and selection grew greater, 
until first the states under their police powers and then the 
Federal Government under its commercial powers passed 
legislation designed to solve the problems resulting from 

To understand present day legislation one should study 
the development of this opposition to really appreciate the 
fact that the legislation of to-day is not a thing of the 
moment but the product of almost two hundred years of 
study and thought by the American people. Virtually 
every argument, every means of restriction, and every 
method of investigation used in recent years has been used 
or recommended at various times in our history for over 
a hundred years. 

No book to-day presents this side of the picture in any 

* Dicey, "Law and Public Opinion in England," pp. 7, 32. 



adequate manner. It has been my purpose to trace the 
development of the opposition to immigration from the 
earliest colonial days to the present time. At the same 
time I have tried to keep the other side of the problem ever 
before the reader. References to any standard text on the 
subject will enlarge such points noted throughout the study. 

The accumulation of evidence has led me to believe in the 
necessity of immigration restriction. However, in tracing 
the development of the opposition to immigration and the 
legislation that has resulted therefrom, it has not been my 
purpose in this study to judge the merit and truthfulness 
of the causes of the opposition and legislation. Hence, I 
have sought to point out only the particular grounds on 
which these rest. For, it has been impossible in one vol- 
ume to present the picture of developing opposition and 
at the same time to pass judgment thereon in any detailed 
manner. However, the author will have accomplished his 
purpose if he causes a stimulation of interest in the prob- 
lem by presenting this neglected side of the subject. 

Roy L. Garis. 





By Hon. Albert Johnson, Chairman, Committee on Immi- 
gration and Naturalization, House of Representatives. 




I Colonial Regulation of Immigration .... 1 

Immigration into the United States: Its growth — Periods 
— The colonies English in structure — Colonial ideals — The 
southern colonists — The northern colonists — The Dutch — 
The Scotch-Irish — The Germans — The French Huguenots 
— The indentured classes — Pauper and criminal classes — 
Colonial legislation and opposition — Results — Conclusions. 

II Opposition to and Regulation of Immigration 

State regulation prior to 1792 — Washington's policy during 
Revolutionary War — His later views — Views of Adams, 
Franklin and Jefferson — Constitutional provisions concern- 
ing foreigners — Early naturalization laws — AHen and Sedi- 
tion Laws — Early nineteenth century views — State legis- 
lation — Resolutions in Congress — Pauper and criminal im- 
migration — Consular reports — Other causes of hostility to 
immigration — Riots against Catholics and Germans — Na- 
tive Americanism — Presidential elections of 1844 and 1852 
— The American Party — Opposition in the fifties — Obsta- 
cles to Federal legislation. 

III Power of Congress Over Immigration .... 59 

Congressional authority under Article I, Section 9 of the 
Constitution — Cases — The internal police power of the 
states — Cases — Congressional authority over immigration 
under the power to regulate commerce — Cases — Conclu- 

IV Federal Immigration Legislation to 1914 . . . 83 

Earlv Acts of Congress— Act of 1875— Act of 1882— Acts 
of 1885, 1887, 1888— Ford Committee Report— Act of 1891 
—Acts of 1893— Act of 1894— Recommendations of Presi- 
dent Roosevelt in 1<X)1— Act of 1903— Minor Acts— Act of 
1907— Act of 1910— Act of 1913— Conclusions. 






V Federal Immigration Legislation 1914-1921 . . 117 

Recommendations of the Immigration Commission — Pub- 
lic opinion and the hteracy test — The Immigration Act of 
1917— Act of December 26, 1920— The AHen Anarchist 
Act of 1918-1920— Act of May 10, 1920— Act of June 5, 
1920— Summary. 

VI The Emergency Quota Legislation 1921-1924 . 142 

Purpose of the Act of May 19, 1921 — Provisions of the 
act — The first year of its operation — Problems created by 
it — Its life extended for two years by the Act of May 11, 
1922 — The second year under the law — The third year un- 
der the law — Effects on the old and new immigration — Net 
immigration into the United States — Immigration by races 
' or peoples — English-speaking immigrants — Conclusion. 

VII The Immigration Act of 1924 169 

President Coolidge's recommendations on Immigration — 
History of the Johnson Bill — Provisions of the new law — 
Non-immigrant classes — Non-quota immigrants — The case 
• for aliens now here without their immediate families — 
Alien wives of American citizens — Travel permits for 
aliens now here — Provisions concerning ministers, profes- 
sors and students — The quota provisions — Preferences with- 
in the quotas — Provisions concerning immigration visas — 
Penal provisions — Provisions to check illegal entry of im- 
migrants as seamen — Burden of proof on the alien — This 
act is additional legislation on immigration — Sources of 

VIII Back to 1890 203 

The history and characteristics of the "old" and "new" 
immigration — The Italian Immigrants — The Slavs — The 
Russian immigrants — The Jewish immigration — Views of 
various authorities on immigration — The test of naturaliza- 
tion — The army tests — Report of Dr. H. H. Laughlin of the 
Carnegie Institute — Analysis of the quotas based on the 
census of 1890 — The criticism of discrimination is without 
foundation — Census of 1890 creates equalization rather than 
discrimination — The National Origins Plan., 

IX Chinese Immigration 286 

Causes of early opposition to Chinese — Early state and 
municipal legislation against them — Early treaties — The 
Burlingame treaty of 1868 — President Grant's recommen- 
dation — Congressional investigation — The Committee's Re- 
port—Act of 1875— The treaty of 1880— Act of 1882— 
Act of 1884— The unratified treaty of 1888— Acts of 1888 
—Cases— Act of 1892— Cases— Act of 1893— Treaty of 
1894— Act of 1894— Acts of 1900— Act of 1902— Act of 1904 
— Conchi.sions on Chinese immigration — Act of 1917 — 
Hindu iiiinii,"ration. 





X Japanese Immigration . 


Analysis of the Japanese population in the United States 
— Japanese and Chinese immigration compared — Japanese 
in Hawaii — Causes and results of Japanese emigration — 
The development of anti-Japanese agitation in the United 
States — California's position — Act of 1907 — The Gentle- 
men's Afi;roement — Treaties of 1894 and 1911 — Criticisms 
of the Agreement — House Report 350 — History of the 
Japanese exclusion clause — Effect of the Hanihara 
letter — The bill in conference — The fear of a treaty — 
Passage — Japan's protest — Analysis of the law — Japanese 
opinion — American opinion — Japanese fear of and protest 
against discriminatory legislation — Views of American 
officials — Conclusions. 







Colonial Regulation of Immigration 

Immigration into United States: Its Growth — Periods — The colonies 
English in structure — Colonial ideals — The southern colonists — The northern 
colonists — The Dutch — The Scotch-Irish — The Germans — The French 
Huguenots — The Indentured classes — Pauper and criminal classes — Colo- 
nial legislation and opposition — Results — Conclusions. 

The immigration problem is almost as old as immigration 
itself; and that means, in American history, almost coter- 
minous with the settlement of the country. For, the peo- 
pling of the continent has been well-nigh from the beginning 
due to immigration, rather than to the natural increase of 
those already within the country. 

In 1640 the population of the colonies was 25,000. In 
1660 the population had increased to 80,000; and in 1689 
to about 200,000. The half-million mark was passed in 
1721; the million mark in 1743; and the two million mark 
in 1767. At the outbreak of the Revolution «the population 
numbered about two and one-half million. When the first 
census was taken in 1790, the population, exclusive of Ver- 
mont and the territory northwest of the Ohio, was a little 
short of four million, viz., 3,929,000. From 1790 to 1820 the 
immigrants numbered about a quarter of a million; in the 
early twenties the annual influx of immigrants was about 
ten or twelve thousand; in the late twenties about twenty 
thousand. In 1837, just before the panic, the annual immi- 
gration was 79,000. By 1842 the figures of annual immigra- 
tion had reached 100,000; by 1854, 428,000. Then, owing 
first to the bad times and later to the war, the figures fell 




off, increasing again subsequently until in 1873, just before 
the panic, when immigration equaled 459,000. Thereafter 
the high- and low-water marks of annual immigration 
varied with good and bad times. By 1882 the high-water 
mark was 789,000. It was not until the present century 
that the annual immigration exceeded a million, the net 
increase in 1907 being 1,050,000. The gross immigration 
in that year was 1,285,000, a figure almost reached again 
in 1914 when the gross immigration was 1,218,000; although 
in that year the net increase was only 769,000. Every year 
from 1900 to 1914 saw virtually a million or more immi- 
grants enter our gates. 

''The history of immigration into the United States may 
for convenience be divided into five periods. The first of 
these includes the time between the first settlement of the 
North American colonies and the year 1783. This date is 
chosen for the end of this first period because, as Professor 
Mayo-Smith has expressed it, 'At that time the state was 
established and any further additions to the population had 
little influence in changing its form or the language and cus- 
toms of the people.' ^ The second period, from 1783 to 1830, 
may be called the period of 'free immigration'. It coincides 
with the beginning of our independent life, and the begin- 
ning of immigration as a distinctly American national prob- 
lem, lit was a period of small immigration, and may be 
designated as the period of free immigration because no 
attempt was made by any governmental agency to control 
the movement. The action of the Federal Government 
in beginning to count the immigrants in 1820 is of great 
importance as marking the beginning of our immigration 
statistics. The third period begins with 1830 and ends in 
1882. It may be called the period of 'agitation and state 
regulation'. The year 1830 is chosen rather arbitrarily as 
representing better than any other assignable date the 
appearance of a new sentiment toward immigration on the 
part of the American people. The fourth period, from 1882 
to 1917, is marked by the passage of two important pieces 

* Mayo-Smith, R., Emigration and Immigration, p. 36. 


of legislation, and may be called the period of 'federal con- 
trol: individual selection'. The final period, from 1917 to 
the present, may be designated the period of 'federal con- 
trol: group selection and restriction.' ^ 

The first attempts to found colonies in this country by 
Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Sir Walter Raleigh were pitiable 
failures. But the settlement on the James River in 1607 
marked the beginning of a nation — a nation that was cer- 
tainly English in its foundation, whatever may be said of 
the superstructure. Virginia, New England, Maryland, the 
Carolinas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Georgia were 
begun by Englishmen; and New England, Virginia, and 
Maryland remained almost entirely English throughout the 
seventeenth century and well into the eighteenth. ''For- 
eigners" began early to straggle into the colonies. But not 
until the eighteenth century was well under way did 
they come in appreciable numbers, and even then the 
great bulk of these non-English newcomers were from the 
British Isles, of Welsh, Scotch, Irish, and Scotch-Irish 

"These colonies reproduced, in so far as their strange and 
wild surroundings permitted, the towns, the estates, and the 
homes of Englishmen of that day. They were organized 
and governed by Englishmen under English customs and 
laws; and the Englishman's constitutional liberties were 
their boast until the colonies wrote these rights and priv- 
ileges into a constitution of their own." ^ 

These colonies took root at a time when profound social 
and religious changes were occurring in England. Church- 
men and dissenters were at war with each other ; autocracy 
was struggling to survive the representative system; and 
agrarianism was contending with a newly created capitalism 
for economic supremacy. The old order was changing. 
Vain attempts were made to stay the progress of the time 
by labor, poor, and corn laws. However, these laws only 
served to fill the highways with vagrants, vagabonds, men- 

*Fairchild, Immigration (rev. ed.), pp. 31-2. 
^ Orth, S. P., Our Foreigners, p. 6. 



dicants, beggars and worse. Under conditions then existing 
it was felt that the country was overpopulated. It was for 
these — for the restive, the discontented, the ambitious, as 
well as for the undesirable surplus, that the American colo- 
nies provided a welcome outlet. 

To the southern plantations were lured those to whom 
land own'ing offered not only a means of livelihood but 
social distinction. These settlers were, in part, adventurers; 
younger sons of noble families who disdained trade but 
were too poor to keep up family pretensions; professional 
men, lawyers, doctors and even clergymen who were ambi- 
tious to become landed gentlemen; and other members of 
the aristocracy who found it advisable to leave England, 
and, in part, rather unworthy representatives of the lower 
classes. A combination of political, social, and economic 
causes was responsible for their coming. 

The northern colonies were settled by a different class of 
the population. They were settled by the Separatists and 
Puritans whose motive for coming was primarily of a reli- 
gious character, and by the town-folk, by that sturdy middle 
class which had wedged its way socially between the aris- 
tocracy and the peasantry, which asserted itself politically 
in the Cromwellian Commonwealth and later became the 
industrial master of trade and manufacture. 

The Dutch came to Manhattan in 1623, taking posses- 
sion of this unassigned central region. Although they held 
sway over the region in which they settled for only fifty 
years, yet it was long enough to stamp upon New Amster- 
dam the cosmopolitan character it has ever since main- 
tained. For, ^'the same spirit that made Holland the lenient 
host to political and religious refugees from every land in 
that restive age characterized her colony and laid the foun- 
dations of the great city of to-day." ^ With the growth of 
the English colonies in the North and South, this central 
territory in the hands of a foreign power came to be recog- 
nized as a source of annoyance and danger, for, due to its 
geographical location, it threatened to split the English colo- 

^Orth, S. P., op. cit., p. 14. 


nies. Faced with such a possibility, on the occasion of a war 
with Holland, England took possession of this region with- 
out serious opposition; and from it formed the colonies of 
New York and New Jersey. 

When the territory of Pennsylvania was granted for set- 
tlement to William Penn in 1681, the whole Atlantic coast 
from Canada to Florida became a field of colonization, sub- 
ject only to English authority. The foundation of the 
United States thus consisted of colonists from England. 
However, in addition to the colonists, people from practi- 
cally every country on the continent came to these English 
colonies. These were the true immigrants and for the most 
part they came to the central colonies, especially to New 
York and Pennsylvania. These were, in particular, the 
Scotch-Irish, the Germans or Palatines, and the French 

^ The most important and influential influx of non-English 
stock into the colonies was the copious stream of Scotch- 
Irish, who were called Scots because they lived originally 
in Scotia and Irish because they moved to Ireland, although 
they were "very little Scotch and much less Irish." ^ Fron- 
tier life was not a new experience to these hardy and 
remarkable people, for when they migrated to Ulster it was 
a wild moorland and the Irish were more than unfriendly 
neighbors. Yet, within three generations they had changed 
the fens and mires into fields and gardens and had built 
flourishing towns and were doing a thriving manufacture 
in linens and woolens. Early in the eighteenth century in 
her mercantilist blindness, England began to pass legislation 
that discriminated against and cut off these articles from 
English competition. Nor was the British Parliament con- 
tent with this, for it also discriminated against Presbyter- 
ianism. Since these Scotch-Irish were Presbyterians, their 
religion was thus subject to attack. Furthermore, their 
hundred year leases were running out and the low-living 
Irish began to outbid them by offering to pay higher rents. 
These civil, religious and economic persecutions thereupon 

° Commons, Races and Immigrants in America, p. 32. 



provoked the largest immigration into the colonies that oc- 
curred before the Revolution. 

Entire congregations came, each headed by its pastor. 
Between 1714 and 1720, fifty-four ships arrived in Boston 
with immigrants from Ireland. It is said that in 1718 
forty- two hundred of them left for America, and that after 
the famine of 1740 at least twelve thousand departed an- 
nually. In the half century preceding the American Revo- 
lution one hundred fifty thousand or mote, perhaps two 
hundred thousand, came to America, and on the eve of the 
Revolution the stock was supposed to constitute a sixth of 
the population of the colonies. 
lixlt is most interesting to note how the colonists felt toward 
these Scotch-Irish immigrants. Cotton Mather wrote in his 
diary on August 7, 1718: ''But what shall be done for the 
great number of people that are transporting themselves 
thither from ye North of Ireland?" John Winthrop, speak- 
ing of twenty ministers and their congregations that were 
expected the same year, said, "I wish their coming so over 
do not prove fatall in the End." i/In 1728 an Irish arch- 
bishop lamented that, ''The whole North is in a ferment." 
"It looks as if Ireland were to send all her inhabitants 
hither," \)complained the governor of Pennsylvania. The 
great mass of the Scotch-Irish came to Pennsylvania, and 
in such large numbers that James Logan, the Secretary of 
the Province, wrote to the Proprietors in alarm in 1729, 
"last week not less than six ships arrived, and every day 
two or three arrive also." 

From this it is evident that they were not always wel- 
come. At the time of their arrival the lands along the 
Atlantic coast were already well occupied. It is evident 
that they had no intention of burdening the towns; but, true 
to their traditions, they pushed on to the frontier, where 
they settled and bore the brunt of the warfare with the sav- 
age. Thus, due to the religious exclusiveness of Massa- 
chusetts and the well-settled character of the country, as 
well as due to a more or less general feeling of hostility of 
the English colonists toward certain types of immigrants, 


they chose as their destination New Hampshire, Vermont, 
Western Massachusetts, and Maine, and, most of all, Penn- 
. sylvania, and the foothill regions of Virginia and the Caro- 
linas. By nature typical pioneers, they pushed into western 
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. ^They 
found their way over the mountain trails into the western 
part of the colony of Pennsylvania; they pushed southward 
along the fertile plateaus that terrace the Blue Ridge Moun- 
tains and offer a natural highway to the South; into Vir- 
ginia where they possessed themselves of the beautiful 
Shenandoah Valley; into Maryland and the Carolinas; until 
the whole western frontier from Georgia to New York and 
from Massachusetts to Maine, was the skirmish line of the 
Scotch-Irish taking possession of the wilderness/' ^ It was 
owing to them that the Quakers and Germans of Pennsyl- 
vania were left undisturbed to live up to their ideals of 
peace and non-resistance. No other element was so master- 
ful and contentious. The Quakers characterized them as 
a ^^pernicious ana pugnacious people who absolutely want 
to control the province themselves." 'They fought the 
Indians, fought the British with great unanimity in two 
wars, and were in the front rank in the conquest of the 
West. More than any other stock has this tough, gritty 
breed, so lacking in poetry and sensibility, molded our na- 
tional character." ^ 

Germantown, near Philadelphia, was founded in 1683 by 
a group of religious refugees from the Rhineland. Other 
German communities were started in the neighboring coun- 
ties. ''Chief among these German sectarians were the Men- 
nonites, frequently called the German Quakers; the Bunk- 
ers, a Baptist sect, who seem to have come from Germany 
boot and baggage, leaving not one of their number behind ; 
and the Moravians, whose missionary zeal and gentle de- 
meanor have made them beloved in many lands." ^ 

William Penn established the colony of Pennsylvania 

'•Orth, S. P, op. p. 12. 

' Ross, E. A., The Old World in the New, p. 13. 

'Orth, S. P., op. cit., p. 13. 



both as a refuge for the persecuted Quakers of England and 
as a real estate venture. ''He was the first American to ad- 
vertise his dominions widely throughout Europe, offering to 
sell one hundred acres of land at two English pounds and 
a low rental. His advertisements combined humanity and 
business, for they called attention to popular government 
and universal suffrage ; equal rights to all regardless of race 
or religious belief; trial by jury; murder and treason the 
only capital crimes, and reformation, not retaliation, the 
object of punishment for other offenses.'' ^ Although set- 
tled a half century later than the Southern and Northern 
Colonies, Pennsylvania soon exceeded them in population. 
Penn sent his agents to Germany, who persuaded large 
numbers of German Quakers and Pietists to emigrate to his 
colony. In the beginning of the eighteenth century when 
Louis XIV overran the Palatinate, thousands of Germans 
fled to England, where they were encouraged by the Eng- 
lish government to migrate to America. Queen Anne even 
invited the harassed peasants of this region to come to 
England, whence they could be transferred to America. 
Over thirty thousand took advantage of the opportunity in 
the years 1708 and 1709. So great was the furor to reach 
the new world that ''ship after ship breasted the Delaware, 
black with Palatines, Hanoverians, Saxons, Austrians and 
Swiss." 11 

Vast numbers of these penniless Germans, who could not 
get to America in any other way, overcame the cost barrier, 
equal to about $500 to-day, by contracting with ship owners 
to sell themselves into servitude for a term of years. In 
this way thousands of the poorer sort of Germans were 
induced to indenture themselves to the settlers to whom 
they were auctioned off by the ship captains in payment for 
transportation. Then, too, after 1717 multitudes of Ger- 
man peasants were lured to America by unscrupulous agents 
called "new-landers" or "soul-stealers", who, for a commis- 

° Commons, op. cit., pp. 29-30. 

Fi.'^ke, The Dutch and Qvakcr Colonics in America, vol. II, p. 351. 
" Rofc.s, op. cit., p. 11. 


sion paid by the ship master, lured the peasant to sell his 
belongings, scrape together or borrow what he could, and 
migrate. Since but few arrived in America out of debt they 
were sold to ''soul-drivers," who took them into the interior 
and indentured them to farmers, usually of their own race. 
After serving from three to five years these redemptioners 
generally received fifty acres of land. 

Before the Revolution not fewer than 60,000 Germans 
had debarked at Philadelphia, to say nothing of the others 
who had settled in New York in the Mohawk Valley, and 
thousands of others in the South. But, by far the most of 
them settled in Pennsylvania, where, ''with an instinct born 
of generations of contact with the soil, they sought out the 
most promising areas in the limestone valleys of the eastern 
part of that colony, cleared the land, built their solid homes 
and ample barns, and clung to their language, customs, and 
religion so tenaciously that to this day their descendants are 
called 'Pennsylvania Dutch'." 

The virtues of these Germans were economic virtues ; in- 
variably they have been characterized as "quiet, industrious, 
and thrifty." They have been characterized also as perhaps 
the most miserable and the most hopeful set of people ever 
set down on our shores. In spite of their poverty, they 
manifested a stern and determined spirit in their fight for 
their faith and home. 

While it would seem from what we have written that they 
were welcomed into the colonies, yet this was not always 
the case. In 1710 several thousand of them, who had ar- 
rived in New York, were given such illiberal treatment that 
they moved into Pennsylvania. It is recorded that "they 
were welcomed by the New York colonists with privation, 
distress, fraud, and cruel disappointment. They were 
cheated and oppressed, their helplessness making them easy 

That they were not always welcome in Pennsylvania and 
that at least at various times a feeling of hostility existed 
against them even there is evident from the writings of 

"Orth, S. P, op. cit., p. 14. 



Benjamin Franklin. In his ''Observations on the Increase 
of Mankind," he wrote in 1751 : ''Why should the Palatine 
boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements and by herd- 
ing together establish their language and manners to the ex- 
clusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by 
England, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so . 
numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying : 
them?" 1- In a letter to Peter Collinson, dated May 9, 
1753, he wrote, "The Germans who come hither are gener- 
ally the most stupid of their own nation, and as ignorance is 
often attended by credulity when knavery would mislead it 
. . . it is almost impossible to remove any prejudices 
they may entertain. . . . Not being used to liberty 
they know not how to make a modest use of it.^^ Unless 
the stream of importation could be turned from this to other 
colonies, they will soon outnumber us, that all the advan- 
tages we have will not be able to preserve our language and 
even our government will become precarious." 

On the revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV 
in 1685 French Protestants fled in vast numbers to England 
and Holland7Tronrwhidi countries many of them found 
their way to America. But few of them came hither directly 
from France. South Carolina, Virginia, New York, Rhode 
Island, and Massachusetts were favored by these noble refu- 
gees, who included in their numbers not only skilled artisans 
and successful merchants, but distinguished scholars and 
professional men in whose veins flowed some of the best 
blood of France. Probably no stock ever came here so i 
gifted and prepotent as these French Huguenots. They I 
readily identified themselves with the industry and aspira- 
tions of the colonies and at once became the leaders in 
the professional and business life in their communities. 
Although only a few thousands in numbers, their descend- 
ants furnished 589 of the fourteen thousand and more 
Americans deemed worthy of a place in "Appleton's Cyclo- 

" Works of Benjamin Franklin, ed. by John Bigelow, 1887, Vol. II, p. 233. 
"This is an argument frequently heard in recent years in favor of re- 
striction of immigration. 
^*Ibid., pp. 297-299. 


pedia of American Biography". In 1790 only one-half of 
one percent, of our people bore a French name, yet this 
element contributed 4.2 percent, of the eminent names in 
our history. ''In Boston, in Charleston, in New York, and 
in other commercial centers, the n^mes of streets, squares, 
and public buildings attest their prominence in trade and 
politics." ''Like the Puritans and the Quakers, the 
Huguenots were of an element that meets the test of fire 
and makes supreme sacrifices for conscience' sake. They 
had the same afiinity for ideals and the same tenacity of 
character as the founders of New England, but in their 
French blood they brought a sensibility, a fervor, and an 
artistic endowment all their own." 

In our study of the colonial opposition to immigration it 
is necessary that we consider one peculiar class, the inden- 
tured servants or redemptioners. They were, for the most 
part, colonists rather than immigrants, although many were 
brought from countries other than England. Some were 
brought under compulsion; the others came voluntarily. 
The former consisted of convicted criminals and kidnaped 
persons; the latter were respectable but destitute persons, 
who, despairing of success or progress in the old country, 
sold themselves into temporary slavery, usually for a term 
of five years, to pay their passage over. Many of the latter 
came from very good classes of society. 

While there were many of these "free-willers" or "redemp- 
tioners", yet the great mass of unskilled labor necessary to 
clear the forests and do the other hard work so plentiful in 
a pioneer land came to America under duress. Boys and 
girls of the poorer classes were hustled on board ships and 
virtually sold into slavery for a term of years. Kidnaping 
or "spiriting" became a fine art under Charles II. Slums 
and alleys were raked for material to stock the plantations. 
Hard-hearted men sold dependent kinsfolk to serve in the 
colonies. About 1670 no fewer than ten thousand persons 
were "spirited" away from England in one year. One kid- 
naper testified in 1671 that he had sent five hundred per- 

"Orth, S. P., op. cit., p. 16. "Ross, E. A., op. cii., p. 10. 



sons a year to the colonies for twelve years and another 
testified that he had sent 840 in one year. The government 
was slow to strike at this infamous traffic; for, as was urged 
in Parliament, ''the plantations cannot be maintained with- 
out a considerable number of white servants." 

Transportation of the idle poor was another common 
practice of the day. In 1663 an Act was passed by Parlia- 
ment empowering Justices of the Peace to send rogues, va- 
grants, and sturdy beggars to the colonies. So many were 
sent that Dr. Johnson deemed the Americans "a race of con- 
victs", who ''ought to be content with anything we allow 
them short of hanging". In the first century of the colonies, 
gallows'-birds were often given the option of servitude in 
the plantations. Some prayed to be hanged instead. In 
1717 the British Government entered on the policy of penal 
transportation, and thenceforth discharged certain classes 
of felons upon the colonies. It is estimated that possibly 
as many as fifty thousand criminals were sent to America 
from the British Isles, from the year 1717 until the practice 
was ended by the American Revolution. New England 
escaped these "seven-year passengers", because she would 
pay little for them and then she had no tobacco to serve as 
a profitable return cargo. It is estimated that between 1750 
and 1770 twenty thousand British convicts were exported 
to Maryland alone. The southern colonies received a much 
larger number of indented servants of all classes than the 
northern colonies, as the semiplantation character of the 
former made a much larger demand for servile labor than 
the farm colonies of the north. 

Ship masters made an enormous profit from this traffic, 
adding as much as 100 percent, of the actual cost of trans- 
portation to cover risks. As a rule the indentured servants 
were auctioned ofi" to the highest bidder at a public auction. 
Adults were bound out for a term of three to six years, chil- 
dren from ten to fifteen years, and smaller children were, 
without charge, surrendered to masters who had to rear and 
board them. The lot of the indentured servant was not 
ordinarily a hard one. Here and there masters were cruel 

"Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, Vol. II, pp. 177 ff. 


and inhuman. But in a new country where hands were so 
few and work so abundant, it was wisdom to be tolerant and 
humane. Servants who had worked out their time usually 
became tenants or freeholders, often moving to other colo- 
nies and later to the interior beyond the fall line, where 
they became pioneers in their turn. 

J/Most of the colonies bitterly resented such cargoes, but 
their self-protective measures were regularly disallowed by 
the selfish home government. As long as they were colonies 
and had no independent standing, their opposition could be 
little more than a complaint. Later, however, when they 
became independent, it became a matter of international 
I relations. 

i Virginia received its share of human chaff. The Council 
of Virginia early complained that ^^it hurteth to suffer par- 
ents to disburden themselves of lascivious sonnes, masters 
of bad servants and wives of ill husbands, and so clogge the 
business with such an idle crue, as did thrust themselves in 
the last voiage, that will rather starve for hunger, than lay 
their hands to labor." In 1637 the collector of the port of 
London averred that ''most of those that go thither ordi- 
narily have no habitation . . . and are better out than 

-within the kingdom." 

/ Colonial legislation to protect society against the evils 

' growing out of the introduction into this country of foreign 
criminals and paupers, commenced simultaneously with the 
settlement of the first colonists. As early as 1639 the Pil- 

i grim settlers of Massachusetts, at Plymouth, required the 
removal of foreign paupers. Their next step was to 

I require indemnity from the master. The same power 
was also early exercised by Virginia, not only to guard 

\ against the importation of paupers, but others. So it 
was by other colonies. Pennsylvania had, from its first set- 
tlement, a law ''for imposing a duty upon persons convicted 
of heinous crimes and imported into the Province," and 

Colonial Charters, 1639 and '92, p. 252. This would seem to be the 
first case of deportation from this country. 
^''Statute in William III, Ch. 13. 
' Tucker's Edition, Black Comm., Vol. II, App. 33. 



another ^'for laying a duty on foreigners and Irish servants, 
etc.; imported into the Province.'' These were, however, 
repealed as early as 1729-30, and a more stringent law was 
passed in their stead. 

The middle Atlantic colonies, especially Pennsylvania, 
suffered most from the importation of paupers and crim- 
inals. Consequently, in this colony we find the most power- 
ful body of opinion contrary to the free admission of aliens, 
and the most frequent and stringent measures to control it. 
Many of the stock arguments against immigration on the 
grounds of pauperism, criminality, and inability for self 
support developed during this period. 

We have already noted the early opposition to the coming 
of the Scotch-Irish and the Germans in such large num- 
bers. We mentioned also a few laws passed to protect the 
colonies. It is worth while for us to analyze these and other 
laws further. 

The act passed in 1722 in Pennsylvania, imposing a tax 
on every criminal landed and making the ship owner re- 
sponsible for the good conduct of his passengers, was fol- 
lowed by numerous other laws designed to help control 
the immigration situation. One of the earliest instances 
of the use of the non-assimilation argument that resulted 
in legislation to restrict immigration was when an act was 
passed September 21, 1727, in Pennsylvania at the sug- 
gestion of the colonial governor, who feared that the peace 
and security of the province was endangered by so many 
foreigners coming in, ignorant of the language, settling to- 
gether and making a separate people, or as we would say 
today, a foreign colony. 'The act in question provided that 
ship masters bringing immigrants must declare whether 
they had permission from the court of Great Britain to do 
so, and must give lists of all passengers and their inten- 
tions in coming. The immigrants must take the oath of 
allegiance to the king, and of fidelity to the proprietary of 
the Province," 

^Dallas; Edition of Laws of Pennsylvania, Vol. I, p. 252. 
^Fairchild, op. dt., p. 45. 


It seems that although this law remained in force for 
a while, it was virtually a dead letter, for the ship masters 
did not get the required license to bring in the immigrants, 
and yet the latter were always admitted."^ v Iii order '^to 
discourage the great importation and coming in of for- 
eigners and of lewd, idle and ill-affected persons into this 
province, as well from parts beyond the seas as from the 
neighboring colonies," (a tax of forty shilling was laid on 
each immigrant by a law passed in 1729 which is quite an 
early instance of the use of a head tax as a restrictive meas- 
ure.-^ While it was repealed within a few months it is 
an evidence of a colonial hostility to certain undesirable 
types of immigration./' In order to prevent sick and dis- 
eased persons (there were many of them) from entering 
the colony, a law was passed requiring all ships to anchor 
a mile from the city until inspected by the port physician. 
The shipmaster was required to land all sick persons 
found on board at a suitable distance from the city and to 
convey them at his own expense to houses in the country 
prepared for them.^^ Efforts were also made to check the 
overcrowding of immigrants in ships, both for humane 
reasons and in order to reduce the number of immigrants. 
Facts were presented to show that whereas the German im- 
portations were at first of good class and people of sub- 
stance, now they were the refuse of the country, and that 
''the very gaols have contributed to the Supplies we are 
burdened with." 

We have already noted that thousands of criminals were 
sent to Maryland. On account of this practice, the general 
assembly of the province in 1676 passed an act requiring all 
shipmasters to declare whether they had any convicts on 
board, the purpose being to prohibit them from landing 
in the province. A fine of two thousand pounds of tobacco, 
half to go to the Proprietary and half to the informer, was 
to be imposed on anyone who attempted to import con- 

^ Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 2:282ff. 

^ Proper, E. E., Colonial Immigration Laws, p. 19. 

^ Pennsylvania Colonial Records, 4 : 516. 



victs.^^ One of the earliest instances of bonding shippers 
for the good conduct of their passengers was a proclama- 
tion issued December 9, 1676, by the lieutenant governor 
requiring all shipmasters who had landed convicts previous 
to the time this act went into effect, to deposit a bond of 
£50 for their good behavior. Any landed without this bond 
were to be imprisoned until it was paid.^''' 

In addition to these laws against paupers and criminals, 
most of the colonies passed legislation designed to prevent 
the entrance of religious sects who were not regarded with 
favor. Especially was this true of New England whose 
religious exclusiveness eliminated the necessity of passing 
other direct restrictive measures. However, an exception 
to this was Massachusetts which passed an elaborate immi- 
gration law in 1700 requiring shipmasters to furnish lists 
of their passengers, and prohibiting the introduction of 
lame, impotent or infirm persons, or those incapable of 
maintaining themselves, except on security that the town 
should not become charged with them. In absence of this 
security, shipmasters were compelled to take them back 
home. The statute was reenacted with amendments from 
time to time. 2^ 

|'|During the seventeenth and the early part of the eigh- 
teenth century, when the Dutch, Scandinavians, Swiss, Ger- 
mans and French were settling in the central and southern 
colonies, Massachusetts was struggling by means of legis- 
lation to maintain its puritan commonwealth:^ If this was 
to be done, every stranger must be regarded with suspicion 
and distrust. So we find the General Court in 1637 ordering 
that no town or person in the colony should receive or en- 
tertain any new comer for longer than three weeks without 
permission of the authorities. The severe laws passed after 
1656 were designed to prevent the coming of the Quakers. 
These laws and the laws against the French Jesuits un- 
doubtedly kept out not only many Quakers, but other 

Archives of Maryland, 2: 540. ""Ibil., 15: 3C. 

^Proper, E. E., Colonial Immigration Laws, Columbia College Studies, 
Vol. XII, No. 2, p. 29. 


Protestants from Great Britain and Western Europe, and 
Catholic laymen from Ireland and the Continent." 

The class most discriminated against for religious reasons 
was the Roman Catholic,^ ^ for most of the colonies passed 
harsh legislation against them. Virginia, and all the New 
England colonies except Rhode Island, had laws to prevent 
the Quai:ers from entering.^^ A fine of £100 was imposed 
on an^^one bringing a Quaker into Virginia, and those 
already settled there were ordered to depart on pain of 
punishment. Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Maryland 
starred on the basis of religious tolerance. However, in 
Maryland a prejudice against Roman Catholics soon mani- 
fested itself and found expression in legislation.^^ One 
such law was passed in 1699, being entitled, ''An act for 
Raising a Supply toward defraying of the Publick Charge of 
this Province and to prevent too great a number of Irish 
Papists being imported into this Province." Massachusetts 
discouraged the coming of all who did not agree with her 
policy of ecclesiastical domination.^^ Virginia, whose 
founders were avowed Episcopalians, wanted no non- 
Conformists, and took active measures to enforce this 
policy.^* . Statutes against the Catholic immigration vary 
in purpose from absolute prohibition in the Puritan colo- 
nies, to petty regulations and annoyances as practiced in 
some of the middle colonies. These restrictions took the 
form of a duty on Irish Catholic servants ; a positive prohi- 
bition of the Roman worship; a double tax on their lands; 
and the ''abjuration oath", which practically excluded mem- 
bers of this faith, unless they chose to break their vows.^^3- 
Virginia prohibited from settling in the Province all per- 
sons who "affected the superstitions of the Church of 

From what has been written it is evident that there was 

^ Report of the Massachusetts Commission on Immigration created under 
an Act of the State approved May 2, 1913, page 25. 
""Proper, E. E., op. cit., p. 13. ^Proper, E. E., op. cit., pp. 25, 63. 
^'Proper, E. E., op. cit., p. 13. 

^Winthrop, Lije and Letters oj Gov. Winthrop, 182. 

**Hening's Statutes, I, 155. "'Proper, E. E., op. cit.. p.. 18. 



at times a feeling of hostility to immigrants even in colonial 
days, especially against certain religious sects and against 
the pauper and criminal classes. . It is evident also tiiat vir- 
tually all of the colonies received their share of human chaff 
despite their vigorous protests, for the English Government 
paid little attention to these colonial self -protective meas- 
ures. But the important thing to note in tracing- tht de- 
velopment of opposition to immigration is that many of the 
thoughtful people of those days were against immigration 
even when there was land in abundance and opportunity 
beckoned on every hand. 

It is astonishing how quickly the ''yellow streak" in the 
population faded. Many of these people belonged to (hr 
class of the unfortunate rather than the vicious and we: 
the product of a passing state of society. No doubt tlr 
worst felons were promptly hanged, so that those who ■ 
transported — despite the protests of Virginia and the oth 
colonies — were such as excited the compassion of the cou! 
in an age that recognized nearly three hundred capital 
offenses. When we consider the fact that many were the 
victims of bad surroundings rather than born malefactor- 
that the larceny of a few shillings was punishable by death 
and that many of the victims were deported because ol 
religious differences and political offenses, or kidnaped and 
brought over to be sold as indentured servants, then the 
stigma of crime is erased. Many humane judges welcomed 
exile as an alternative to the death penalty. Under the re- 
generative stimulus of opportunity many of these persons 
reformed, and, therefore, one does not wonder that some of 
these transported persons rose to places of distinction and 
honor in the colonies and that many of them became re- 
spected citizens. Indeed, Maryland recruited her school 
masters from among their ranks. Thus, the bad strains 
tended to run out, and in the making of our people the 
criminals had no share at all corresponding to their original 
numbers. It was easy to make good in those days for land 
was plentiful, labor scarce and opportunity beckoned on 


every hand. But today the immigrant's labor is usually 
considered no more than any other commodity to be bought 
at the lowest price, and opportunity is like a jack-o-lantern 
or like the pot of gold at the foot of the rainbow. 

It is also important to note that out of this colonial oppo- 
sition to immigration most of the stock arguments against 
unrestricted immigration were developed, and some of 
the later important legislative expedients for restriction, 
such as the head tax, the bonding of shippers, the exclusion 
of paupers and criminals, etc., were put into practice. One 
present-day argument against immigration was not then 
used, viz., an opposition to immigration on the grounds of 
the economic competition of the newcomer with the older 
residents, which, considering the economic opportunity of 
those days, is self-explanatory. 

In addition to noting, as we did at the opening of this 
chapter, that the total number of persons coming to the 
colonies during this period was slight when compared to 
present day immigration, it is also necessary to point out 
that the population, while containing a number of diverse 
elements, was still predominantly English when the Revo- 
lution began, and that those who were not English were 
almost wholly from races closely allied to the English. 
These were principally the Dutch, Swedes, Germans, and 
Scotch-Irish, which with the English, as Professor Commons 
has pointed out, ''were less than two thousand years ago 
one Germanic race in the forests surrounding the North 
Sea." He also adds the significant statement that ''It is 
the distinctive fact regarding colonial immigration that it 
was Teutonic in blood and Protestant in religion." "This 
Protestantism was important because of the type of mind 
and of character that Protestantism at that day represented. 
It stood for independence of thought, moral conviction, 
courage, and hardihood." 

' When Father Jogues visited New Netherlands in 1644 he 

Commons, op. cit., p. 27. 
" Fairchild, op. cit., p. 54. 



found that eighteen different languages were spoken in 
Manhattan.^^ In New Haarlem, in 1661, the male popu- ; 
lation consisted of Frenchmen, Walloons, Dutchmen, Danes, 
Swedes, and Germans. It was said that every language of ; 
Europe could be found in Pennsylvania. Professor Mc- 
Master, writing of the later colonial period, says, ^'Diverse 
as the inhabitants of the states were in occupations, they j 
were not less diverse in opinions, in customs and in habits. ] 
. . . Differences of race, differences of nationality, of i 
religious opinions, of manners, of tastes, even of speech, were 
still distinctly marked." Yet as a result of the common \ 
racial character of the migration, assimilation was easy, 
quick, and complete and all diversity was short-lived. ' 
Thus, "by the time of the Revolution there was a definite 
American population, knit together by over two centuries j 
of toil in the hard school of frontier life, inspired by com- 
mon political purposes, speaking one language, worshipping 
one God in divers manners, acknowledging one sovereignty, 
and complying with the mandates of one common law." 

In summarizing our study of the colonial opposition to 
immigration we are forced to conclude that the anti- (jl 
immigration laws passed by the colonial legislatures were, 
broadly speaking, very meager in their effect as restrictive | 
or prohibitive measures. Yet to preserve the ideals which m 
led to the settlement of the colonies, it seemed to many of 
them necessary to ascertain carefully the character of the 
prospective settlers and to exclude those whom they, for 
any reason, deemed unfit to become associates in their proj- 
ect. \ The rigorous measures of the New England colonies 
practically excluded immigrants from other nations than 
England, and even limited those from the mother country < 
to persons of a definite political and religious belief. This ' 
co^-onial opposition to immigration had its effect in the 
other colonies also, for it not only kept out or at least 
checked certain undesirable classes, but those who entered 

Father Jogues, Novum Belgium in Jameson, Narrative of New Nether- 
lands, 1609-1664. 
'"Orth, S. P., op. cit., p. 23. 


were sometimes forced to move on to the frontier. It must 
not be inferred then from the statement that the results of 
restriction were meager, that these laws were therefore 
useless. On the contrary, they were an important factor 
in the development of colonial life. It was partly on ac- 
count of these restrictions and prohibitions that the dif- 
ferent colonies were enabled to maintain their character- 
istic existence and preserve their political and religious 
ideal^,*^"^ One commentator has expressed the view that ''it 
was due largely to these very measures that the colonies, 
especially Virginia and New England, have given to this 
country the ideals of government and social order that 
have made America what she is today. It was largely he- 
cause of these measures that there has been a Massa- 
chusetts and a Virginia." 

^''See Proper, E. E., Colonial Immigroiion Laws. 


Opposition to and Regulation of Immigration 1775-1882 

State regulation prior to 1792 — Washington's Policy during Revolutionary 
War — His later views — Views of Adams, Franklin and Jefferson — Consti- 
tutional provisions concerning foreigners — Early naturalization Jaws — 
Alien and Sedition Laws — Early nineteenth century views — State legislation 
— Resolutions in Congress — Pauper and criminal immigration — Consular 
Reports — Other causes of hostility to immigration — Riots against Catholics 
and Germans — Native Americanism — Presidential elections of 1844 and 
1852 — The American Party — Opposition in the fifties — Obstacles to Fed- 
eral legislation. 


'^/'The hostility to immigration did not cease with the 
American Revolution. Many of the commonwealths con- 
tinued to legislate on immigration during the Revolu- 
tion and after peace was declared. Massachusetts, by a 
law in 1783, prohibited the return of refugees, and so did 
several other states. The first naturalization laws passed 
by Congress, recognized this exercise of power and ex- 
pressly provided that such persons could not become 
naturalized without the special consent of those states which 
had prohibited their return,^ 

On September 16, 1788 the Congress of the old Con- 
federation unanimously adopted the following resolution: 
''Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby, recommended to 
the several states to pass laws for preventing the transporta- 
tion of convicted malefactors from foreign countries into 
the United States." ^ 

Pursuant to this recommendation of the Continental 
Congress, the states passed laws in conformity therewith. 
Virginia passed a law on November 13, 1788 forbidding 
masters of vessels from landing convicts, under a penalty 

*Acts of 1790 and '95, U. S. Laws, Vol. I, pp. 104, 415. 
'Journal of Congress for 1788, p. 867. 



of fifty pounds. South Carolina,^ Georgia and New York 
passed similar laws the same year. Massachusetts followed 
the example in 1791. Pennsylvania passed an act, March 
27, 1789 providing ''that no captain of a vessel, or other 
person, shall knowingly or willingly bring, import, or send, 
or so cause to be, or be aiding or assisting therein, into this 
Commonwealth, by land or water, any felon, convict, or 
person under sentence of death, or any other disability, 
incurred by a criminal prosecution or who shall be delivered, 
or sent to him or her from any prison or place of confine- 
ment in any place out of the United States." ^ 

During the Revolution the Continental Congress estab- 
lished the policy of not employing any but native born 
citizens in the foreign service of the country. The same 
policy was pursued, as far as practicable, by Washington 
during the Revolution. On July 7, 1775 he sent out the 
instruction that ''no man shall be appointed as a sentry who 
is not A NATIVE of this country." On July 10, 1775 
he ordered the recruiting service "not to enlist any person 
who is not an American born, unless such person has a wife 
and family, and is a settled resident in this country." On 
May 7, 1777 he sent word to Richard Henry Lee, "It is by 
the zeal and activity of our own people that the cause 
must be supported, and not by a few hungry adventurers." 
On March 17, 1778 he ordered one hundred men to be 
chosen and annexed to the guard of the commander-in- 
chief. In his orders he instructed that ''They Must Be 
American Born/' On July 24, 1778, he wrote to Gouverneur 
Morris, "I do most devoutly wish that we had not a single 
foreigner amongst us, except the Marquis de Lafayette." ^ 

After the adoption of the constitution, in his first annual 

' Public Laws of the State of South Carolina to the Year 1790, Inclusive, 
p. 464. 

* Dallas, Edition of Laws of Pennsylvania, Vol. II, p. 692. Or, Pennsyl- 
vania's Statutes at Large from 1682 to 1801, XIII, 261-62. 

^The policy of "America for Americans" thus seems to have had its 
origin at the very beginning of our Independence. The term itself was in 
common use prior to 1850. See Sanderson, J. P., Republican Landmarks, 
Ch. 39 (1856). in which the term is used frequently. See also page 334 of 
the same book. Busey, S. C, Immigration — Its Evils and Consequences 
(1856), should likewise be read in this connection. 



message to Congress, Washington said, ''Various considera- 
tions render it expedient that the terms on which foreigners 
may be admitted to the rights of citizens, should be speedily 
ascertained by a uniform rule of naturalization." But in 
regard to the employment of foreign-born citizens in the 
public service, he does not seem to have changed the views 
entertained by him during the Revolution, for in a letter 
dated January 20, 1790 to J. Q. Adams he stated, ''You 
know, my good sir, that it is not the policy of this govern- 
ment to employ foreigners when it can well be avoided, 
either in the civil or military walks of life." Concerning 
immigration itself. President Washington wrote to John 
Adams, November 17, 1794, "My opinion with respect to 
immigration is, that except of useful mechanics and some 
particular description of men and professions there is 
no use of encouragement." In a letter to Sir John St. Clair, 
of England, he declared his opposition thereto in the follow- 
ing very positive terms: "I have no intention to invite 
immigrants, even if there are no restrictive acts against 
it. I am opposed to it altogether." Then in a letter to 
Patrick Henry, dated October 9, 1795, he wrote, "In a 
word, I want an American character, that the powers of 
Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for 
others. This, in my judgment, is the only way to be re- 
spected abroad and happy at home." 

John Adams entertained similar views. In a letter to 
Christopher Gadsden he gives expression to the following 
sentiments : "Foreign meddlers, as you properly denominate 
them, have a strange, a mysterious influence in this coun- 
try. Is there no pride in American bosoms? . . . The plan 
of our worthy friend, John Rutledge, relative to the admis- 
sion of strangers to the privileges of citizens, as you explain 
it, was certainly prudent. Americans will find that their 
own experience will coincide with the experience of all 
other nations, and foreigners must be received with caution, 
or they will destroy all confidence in government." 

Benjamin Franklin, writing in the American Museum 
for the year 1787, stated that the only encouragements 


I which this government holds out to strangers are such as 
i are derived from good laws and liberty. In a paper read 
at his home on April 20, 1787, the author pointed out that 
we have a right to restrict immigration whenever it appears 
'6 likely to prove hurtful and he warned the states against 
's permitting the importation of criminals from European 
countries. With a somewhat unwarranted optimism he 
^ added, ''It is now not likely that these states will be in- 
sulted with transportations of this sort, directly ordered 
from any other sovereign power." 
5 m Although the author of the Declaration of Independence 

1 and of the liberal naturalization law of Virginia, enacted in 
May, 1779, in which he asserted the natural right of ex- 
patriation, Thomas Jefferson was opposed to immigration 
and asserted the right of the states to prohibit and regulate 
it. That immigration was full of menace and that it was 
considered a serious problem by the ''Sage of Monticello" 
is evident from the following statements. In his Notes 
on Virginia, first printed in 1782, Jefferson wrote thus: 
I "But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the 
i scale against any advantage expected from a multiplica- 
I tion of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is 
for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize 
I as much as possible in matters which of necessity they must 
transact together. Civil government being the sole object 
of forming societies, its administration must be conducted 
by common consent. Every species of government has its 
specific principles. Ours, perhaps, are more peculiar than 
those of any other. It is a composition of the freest princi- 
ples of the English Constitution with others derived from 
' natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can 
be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. 
Yet, from such we are to expect the greatest number of 
immigrants. They will bring with them the principles of 
the governments they leave, or if able to throw them 
off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, 
passing, as usual, from one extreme to the other. It would 
be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of 



temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, 
they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their 
numbers, they will share legislation with us. They will 
infuse into it their spirit, warp or bias its direction, and 
render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." ^ 

He was also the author of a petition to the Virginia 
Legislature, presented in 1797, and signed by citizens of 
x\lbemarle, Amherst, Fluvanna, and Goochland counties, 
praying that none but native born citizens should be eligible 
as jurors in grand or petty civil or criminal cases. 

On another occasion he wrote, ''I hope we may find some 
means in the future of shielding ourselves from foreign 
influence — political, commercial, or in whatever form at- 
tempted. I can scarcely withold myself from joining in 
the wish of Silas Dean, that there were an ocean of fire 
between this and the old world!" 

While minister to France, in 1788, he wrote a letter to 
Mr. Jay, in which he stated, "Native citizens, on several 
valuable accounts, are preferable to aliens, or citizens alien 
horn. ... To avail ourselves of native citizens, it appears 
to me advisable to declare by standing law that no person, 
but a native citizen, shall be capable of the office of consul." 
Then years later he asks 'Vhether it is desirable for us to 
receive the dissolute and demoralized handicraftsmen of 
the old cities of Europe." ^ Being a serious advocate of 
restriction, Jefferson merely asserted a natural right of emi- 
gration, — viz, expatriation. However, being the leading 
advocate of state rights Jefferson was uncompromisingly 
hostile to legislation by the Federal government on the 
subject. The important thing to note, however, is that he 
was hostile to immigration and favored restriction.^ 

It would seem that the views of these leaders can be 
taken as representative of the prevailing attitude toward 
immigration among the body of the American people at 

' Notes on Virginia, 152. 

Jefferson's Writings, Vol. IX, p. 453. 

"Letter to Lithpow, January 4, 1805, in Works, Vol. II, p. 270. 
" Contrast with this the erroneous views set forth by Mary Antin in her 
little book, "They Who Knock at Our Gates." 


that time. The debates in the Constitutional Convention 
of 1787 disclose some fear of the political influence of the 
foreign settler. These fears of and this hostility to for- 
eigners found expression in various clauses of the constitu- 
tion,* Article I, Section 2 of the constitution specifies that 
"No person shall be a Representative who shall not have 
been seven years a Citizen of the United States." Article 
I, Section 3 states that ''No person shall be a Senator who 
shall not have been nine years a citizen of the United 
States." A naturalized person may thus become a Repre- 
sentative or a Senator only after a citizenship of seven and 
nine years respectively. Still more clearly is the distrust 
of the foreigner expressed in the clause in Article II which 
debars foreign-born citizens from the offices of President 
and Vice-President. It reads, ''No Person except a natural 
born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at tlie time 
of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the 
Office of President." Another reference in the constitution 
to the subject, which we shall discuss later, is Article I, 
Section 9, which reads, "The Migration or Importation of 
such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think 
proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress 
prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, 
but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, 
not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." 

An examination of the history of Congressional legisla- 
tion on the subject of the naturalization laws must satisfy 
everyone that the statesmen of the Revolution did not 
entertain any idea that aliens had an absolute right to par- 
ticipate in the highest prerogatives of the government, but 
acted on the subject as a matter of expediency, and treated 
it as a privilege conferred. The period of residence re- 
quired for naturalization was set at two years by the Act of 
1790, but this was raised to five years in 1795. The Act 
of 1798 required a residence of fourteen years, with a dec- 
laration of intention at least five years before admission, to 

* See Kapp, F., "Immigration," Ch. IX, Immigration as Ajfccted by 
the Constitution of the United States (1870). 



be admitted to citizenship. Aliens arriving in the United ! i 
States after the passage of the act had to be registered.^^ | i 
Those who were enemies could never become citizens; even 
those who were proved to be friends were compelled, before 
taking the oath of citizenship, to produce certificates of I 
registration in proof of residence in the country for fourteen : 
years. However, this was too drastic to be expedient, so at 
the suggestion of President Jefferson, the residence was ; 
reduced by the naturalization law of 1802 to five years, j 
With this one exception, there was from the passage of the 
first act in 1790 down to 1824, a uniform and constant ; 
advance in the demands of the laws passed by Congress on I 
the subject upon those on whom they authorized the privi- : 
lege of citizenship to be conferred. From these laws and • 
from the discussion connected with them it would seem , 
that there existed at that time a sentiment against the i 
alien within our country. \ 

During the consideration of the bill to establish a uni- 
form rule of naturalization in 1790 there was a long and . 
animated discussion in the House of Representatives, in I 
which the views of most of the leading members were 
elicited. The discussion arose on a motion made by i 
Thomas T. Tucker, of South Carolina, to permit aliens to j 
hold lands without having resided any definite period in j 
the country, though he accompanied his motion with the \ 
declaration that ''he had no objection to extending the j' 
term ... to three years.'' { 

Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, one of the framers of 1 
the Federal Constitution, said: i 

''He presumed it was intended by the Convention, who j 
framed the Constitution, that Congress should have the 
power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular states 
receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would » 
not have received them in any other manner." 

James Madison, of Virginia, also one of the framers of 
the Constitution, and who was foremost among those in 

" Annals of Congress of 1797-1799, Vol. II, p. 1566. 
• "Annals of Congress, Vol. I, pp. 1146 to 1165. ! 


favor of liberal legislation for citizens of foreign birth, 
frankly said, 'Vhen we are considering the advantages that 
may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought 
also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against 
abuses." He concluded his remarks as follows: 

"I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of 
naturalization excluded a single person of good fame that 
really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the 
other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire 
the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the 
wealth or strength of the United States." 

James Jackson, of Georgia, was not only in favor of a 
long residence, but anxious to guard against the admission 
of improper persons. He said: 

^'He hoped to see the title of a citizen of America as 
highly venerated and respected as a citizen of old Rome. 
I am clearly of opinion, that rather than have the common 
class of vagrants, paupers, and other outcasts of Europe, 
that we had better be as we are, and trust to the natural 
increase of our population for inhabitants." 

Theodore Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, said: 

^'He thought Congress might use their discretion, and 
admit none but reputable citizens, such only were fit for 
the society into which they were blended." 

Pending the consideration of the resolution that later 
resulted in the Naturalization Act of 1798, an animated 
debate resulted.^- Mr. Harper, of Maryland, moved as 
follows: ^That provision ought to be made by law for pre- 
venting any person becoming entitled to the rights of a 
citizen of the United States, except by birth." 

H. G. Otis, of Massachusetts, said: 

''He himself had not the smallest doubt as to the con- 
stitutionality of restricting aliens in the way proposed. He 
believed that Congress, could, if they thought proper, make 
a residence of forty or fifty years necessary before an alien 
should be entitled to citizenship, which would extend to the 
whole life of a person, and prove an effectual exclusion." 

"Annals of Congress of 1797-99, Vol. II, p. 1568 to 1580. 



Samuel Sitgreaves, of Pennsylvania, said: 
''They might avoid any constitutional embarassment by 
extending the time of residence of aliens so far as to pre- 
vent them from ever becoming citizens, by which means 
persons who could not be considered as having a common 
interest with the citizens of the country, would be effectu- 
ally excluded from holding offices in the government." 
^James A. Bayard, of Delaware, said: 

"Aliens cannot be considered as members of the society 
of the United States; our laws are passed on the ground 
of our policy, and whatever is granted to aliens is a mere 
matter of favor; and, if it is taken away, they have no right 
to complain." 

Following the passage of the Naturalization Act of 1802 
various efforts were made to amend the law so as ''to 
secure more effectually to the native citizens the right of 
government." Such a memorial was presented to the second 
session of the twenty-fifth Congress by John M. Patton, of 
Virginia, from the Native American Association of Wash- 
ington City, signed by nearly a thousand persons.^^ 

A bill introduced into the first session of the twenty-sixth 
Congress by A. C. Hand, of New York,^^ and another in- 
troduced August 1, 1842 by J. P. Walker of Wisconsin,^® 
came to naught. 

Though he himself was opposed to it, on June 1, 1844 
James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, presented in the Senate 
a memorial from the citizens of Philadelphia, which would 
have amended the naturalization laws to require all foreign- 
ers to reside twenty-one years in the country before admit- 
ting them to the same privileges as native citizens. 

On June 7, 1844 Senator W. S. Archer, of Virginia, in 
presenting a similar petition, said: 

"There was, he thought, a growing combination of cir- 
cumstances, which furnished ample ground for the con- 

" Great use has been made of such a defense for restriction of immigra- 
tion in recent years. 
"Congressional Globe 1837-8, p. 187. 
"Congressional Globe 1840-41; pp. 23, 36, 41. 
"Congressional Globe 1841-42; p. 817. 


' elusion, that the great mass of uneducated foreigners, wholly 
ignorant of the nature and value of our institutions, an- 
nually pouring into the country, could not, within the short 

: period of five years, fixed by^the present law, become fit to 
exercise, with a due sense of their value and responsibility, 
the rights and privileges of native born citizens. The pre- 
mature exercise of such rights had grown to an evil of great 
magnitude, of which there had, unhappily, but too recently, 

I been a painful demonstration." 

I At the second session of the twenty-eighth Congress 
1 various ineffectual efforts were made in the House of Rep- 
resentatives to secure amendments to the naturalization 

' During the early part of the same session, Henry John- 
son of Louisiana, speaking in the Senate in favor of a reso- 
lution he had introduced to modify the naturalization laws 
so as to extend the time for foreigners to become citizens, 
to prevent frauds, etc., said: 

''It is, indeed, a lamentable fact, that most of the for- 
i eigners who immigrate to this country are profoundly 
ignorant of the nature of the government and of its politi- 
cal institutions, and are mere instruments in the hands of 
designing men, to be used at the elections for the most 
corrupt purposes — All parties are equally interested in 
guarding against a repetition of the abuses complained of, 
which, if not prevented in the future, may ultimately de- 
stroy our government." 

In November, 1844 Daniel Webster addressed a meeting 
of the Whigs of Boston in which he took ground in favor 
of an alteration of the naturalization laws.^^ He said: 

'The result of the recent elections, in several States, has 
impressed my mind with one deep and strong conviction; 
that is, that there is an imperative necessity for reform- 
ing the naturalization laws of the United States. The 
preservation of the government, and consequently the in- 

" Congressional Globe 1843-44, p. 658. 
"Congressional Globe 1844-45, pp. 64, 150. 
i " Niles Register, Vol. LXVII, p. 172. 



terest of all parties, in my opinion, clearly and strongly 
demand this. . . . Fellow citizens, I profess to be a lover 
of human liberty. But I profess my heart, my reputation, 
my pride of character, to be an American." 

The evidence presented by these memorials, bills, 
speeches, etc. — nor have all of them been mentioned here, — 
from all sections of the country and made by the leading 
men of the day, seems to indicate that a considerable ele- 
ment of the population was gravely concerned over the 
problems that had resulted from immigration into the 
country prior to 1850. 

The Alien and Sedition laws passed in 1798 during 
the administration of John Adams, bear further testi- 
mony to the hostility felt toward the alien. Under the 
Alien Law, the President of the United States was in- 
vested with power to send away all such aliens as he judged 
dangerous to the peace and safety of the country, or had 
reasons to think were hatching treason or laying plots 
against the Government. Imprisonment for three years 
and deprivation of the privilege to become a citizen were 
the punishments provided for anyone so ordered to depart 
who was found at large without a license to remain. Those 
thus punished were also subject to removal from the coun- 
try on the order of the President, and if they voluntarily 
returned they could be reimprisoned for such time as the 
President thought the public good required. In order that 
no alien might escape, sea captains were to make reports 
in writing of the names, ages, and places of birth of all 
foreigners brought over in their ships. This act was a 
result of transitory unsettled conditions, particularly the 
expectation of a war with France, and contained a pro- 
viso that it should expire two years after passage. But it 
contains an important permanent principle which has been 
made much of in recent years, viz. the right of deporta- 

Even more stringent than these laws was another en- 

* Every standard American History deals at length with the Alien and 
Sedition Laws. 


! acted in the same year which gave to the President the 
right, in case of war declared or invasion threatened, to 
seize, secure, or send away all resident aliens, whether 
natives or adopted citizens, of the hostile nation. 

^'When we recall the conditions existing at the time of the 
passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts — a young Republic 
with a new form of government surrounded by avowed and 
hostile enemies — perhaps there was some justification for 
I this severe attitude toward foreigners in the country, which 
jthe Federal Government adopted at the outset." How- 
ever, the important thing to note in this connection is that 
present day hostility to immigration is not a new thing. The 
views and statutes to which we have referred have given 
tone and color to much of the opposition that has mani- 
fested itself from then to the present day. Historical facts 
thus seem to refute the contentions of the past and present 
advocates of unrestricted immigration that we have always 
welcomed the immigrant with outstretched arms. 

That most of this early feeling of opposition to the influx 
of foreign elements was due to an anticipation of political 
dangers is evident from the following statements. When a 
proposal was made in 1804 in Connecticut to extend the 
franchise, it brought from the Federalists the charge that 
''Never yet has an extension of the franchise failed to bring 
with it those triple horrors : Catholic, Irishmen, and Demo- 
cratic rule." ''Give to every man a vote and the ports of 
Connecticut would be crowded with ships swarming with 
patriots and rapparees fresh from the bogs of Erin, elec- 
tions would be decided by the refuse of jails and gibbets, 
and factious men from Ireland would inflict on Connecticut 
just such a government as they had already inflicted on 
Delaware, on Pennsylvania, on New York." 

The Hartford Convention in 1814 desired to make every 
person thereafter naturalized ineligible to hold any civil 
office under the federal government. The Convention held 
that the population of the United States was then "amply 

"Warne, The Tide of Immigration, p. 236. 

"^McMaster, History of the People of the United States, Vol. Ill, p. 192. 



sufficient to render this nation in due time sufficiently great 
and powerful." 

In 1807 immigrants were characterized as "the vagabonds 
and wandering felons of the universe" and ''hordes of vulgar 
Irish scarcely advanced to the threshold of civilization, all 
the outcast villains, all the excrescences of gouty Europe" 
who descend upon our shores and through naturalization 
are outw^ardly transformed ''from aliens to natives — from 
slaves to citizens." 

On July 4, 1815, James Buchanan delivered an oration ' 
in the city of Lancaster upon the subject of foreign influ- 
ence and upon the policy that the United States ought to. 
pursue toward foreign nations, in which he said, "Above all, - 
we ought to drive from our shores foreign influence, and 
cherish exclusively American feelings. Foreign influence 
has been in every age, the curse of republics." 

William H. Crawford, while Secretary of War under the 
administration of James Madison, made a report on Indian 
Affairs in March, 1816, in which he stated, "It will redound 
more to the national honor to incorporate, by a humane | 
and benevolent policy, the natives of our forests in the ! 
great American family of freedom, than to receive, with i 
open arms, the fugitives of the old world, whether their | 
flight has been the effect of their crimes or their virtues." ! 
The expression of these sentiments caused him to be made ; 
the object of bitter assault from the foreigners and it was j 
believed at the time, mainly defeated his nomination for the 
Presidency in favor of Monroe. Thus did foreign influence 
make itself felt early in our political history as a Republic. ' 

In a letter addressed to Dr. Coleman, dated August 26, 
1824, General Jackson wrote, "In short, sir, we have been ! 
too long subject to the policy of British merchants. It is li 
time we should become a little more Americanized, and in- 
stead of feeding paupers and laborers of England, feed our 
own; or else, in a short time, by continuing our present 
policy, we shall be paupers ourselves." 

With the growth of manufactures, there arose a demand ' 

Warne, op. cit., p. 237. 


for laborers, particularly skilled laborers, who knew the 
technique of industry. Since it was extremely difficult to 
persuade any great number of Americans to forego the 
possibility of becoming independent landowners and culti- 
vators in order to become hired workers in somebody else's 
factory, there arose a demand for foreign artisans. Despite , 
this demand from the manufacturers, various states passed 
laws after 1820 to restrict at least certain types of immi- 
grants.^^ ' 

New York passed on February 11, 1824,-^ "an act con- 
cerning passengers in vessels coming to the port of New 
York." It provided ''that every master or commander of 
any ship or other vessel arriving at the port of New York ' 
from any country out of the United States, or from any 
other of the United States than this state, shall within 
twenty-four hours after the arrival of such ship or vessel 
in the said port, make a report in writing, on oath or 
affirmation, to the Mayor of the City of New York, or to 
the recorder of the said city, of the name, place of birth, 
and last legal settlement, age and occupation of every per- 
son who shall have been brought as a passenger in such 
ship or vessel on her last voyage from any country out of 
the United States into the port of New York, and from 
any of the United States, other than this state. ... It 
shall be lawful for the said mayor or recorder to require 
every such master or commander of any such ship or vessel 
to be bound with two sufficient sureties, not exceeding 
three hundred dollars for each passenger not being a citizen 
of the United States. . . . Every person not being a citizen 
of the United States, who shall enter the said city with 
the intention of residing therein, shall within twenty-four 
hours thereafter make a report of himself in writing, on 
oath or affirmation, to the mayor, or to the recorder of the 

"If the absence of governmental efforts to regulate and control immigra- 
tion may be called a policy of "free" immigration, then it would seem, ac- 
cording to Fairchild, that this policy ended at this time when the states 
began to legislate on the subject under their police powers. See Fairchild, 
Immigration, pp. 31-32; also quoted, ante, Chapter I. 

- New York Laws, 1824, Ch. 37. 



said city, stating his name, age, and occupation, the name 
of the ship or vessel in which he arrived, the time and 
place when and where he landed, and the name of the com- 
mander of such ship or vessel, under the penalty of one : 
hundred dollars." 

In like manner Massachusetts had passed ^'an act to i 
prevent the introduction of paupers from foreign ports or ; 
places" on February 25, 1820.-^ Under this law she also 
required from the master of the vessel a list of the names 
and places of residence of all passengers. He was likewise 
compelled to give bond with sufficient sureties of any pas- 
sengers liable to become chargeable for their support to ; 
the commonwealth, the bond not to exceed five hundred,.; 
dollars for each passenger. 

Maryland passed ^'an act relating to the importation of 
passengers, March 22, 1833." This law contained similar 
provisions. There was a requirement that the master of 
the vessel give to the mayor or register of Baltimore, within 
twenty-four hours, a list containing the name, age, and 
occupation of every alien brought in. The master of the 
vessel had the option of paying in a dollar and a half for 
each alien or of giving two sufficient sureties, to be ap- 
proved by the mayor or register, for a sum not exceeding \ 
one hundred and fifty dollars for each passenger. 

In these various ways various states undertook to check 
immigration and to eliminate the undesirable classes.^ ^ That 
such undesirable classes were getting in, despite these laws, 
is evident from the records of those days, and the evils 
resulting therefrom soon stirred the native population to 
new efforts. 

The exportation of convicts and paupers into the United 
States by some of the European governments had as early 
as 1836 created evils that were so seriously felt in many of 

Massachusetts Laws, 1820, Chap. 290. 

Maryland State Laws, 1833, Chap. 303. 
^See Abbott, "Historical Aspects of the Immigration Problem" (1926) 
for many select documents relatini? io the subject matter of this chapter. 
See also Bromwcll, W. J., History of Immigration to the United States^ 
pp. 198 ff. (1856), 


our large cities that the municipal authorities of Boston, 
iNew York, Baltimore and New Orleans were forced to take 
I steps to guard against it. 

In Massachusetts the subject was brought up in the leg- 
islature in 1836, which, after some consideration, adopted 
the following: ^^Resolved, That it is expedient to instruct 
our Senators, and request our Representatives in Congress 
to use their endeavors to obtain the passage of a law to 
prevent the introduction of foreign paupers into this coun- 
try, and to favor any other measures which Congress may 
i be disposed tdk adopt to effect this object." 

This resolution was presented in the United States Senate 
May 2, 1836, by John Davis, who availed himself of the 
occasion to submit some startling facts on the subject.^^ 
The following are extracts from it: 

^Tn 1833 the King appointed a commission, with large 
powers, to collect evidence and report to Parliament (on 
pauperism). . . . The commissioners discovered that some 
of the parishes had, of their own accord, and without any 
authority in law, adopted the plan of ridding themselves 
of the evil by persuading the paupers to immigrate to 
this side of the Atlantic. And whom, Mr. President, did 
they send? The most idle and vicious; furnishing them 
with money, besides paying their passage, and then leaving 
them on this continent, either to reform or to rely on the 
I people here for support. The commissioners strongly rec- 
ommended to Parliament to adopt it, and to authorize the 
parishes to raise money by taxes for this purpose. They 
proposed, too, that the most idle, debauched, and corrupt — 
the incurable portion — should be selected for this purpose, 
while the better portion should be left, to be reclaimed 
when detached from the force of evil counsel and evil 
example. . . . Pauper immigrants have been repeatedly 
1 found in the House of Industry in Boston, with the very 
money received from the parish concealed about them, 
and in some instances, to prevent detection, sewed in their 
clothes. Out of 866 persons received into that place during 

Congressional Debates of 1835-6, Vol. XII, part 2, p. 1378. 


the last year, 516 were foreigners. . . . Massachusetts has 
attempted to modify the evil by countervailing legislation, 
by requiring bonds from the masters of vessels bringing 
foreign passengers, conditioned that for a period they shall 
not become chargeable to the public. This, however, proves 
inadequate. . . . 

''Now, sir, is it just? Is it morally right for Great Britain 
to attempt to throw upon us this oppressive burden of sus- 
taining her poor? Shall she be permitted to legislate them 
out of the kingdom, and to impose on us a tax for their 
support, without an effort on our part to countervail such 
a policy? Would it not be wronging our own virtuous poor 
to divide their bread with those who have no just or natural 
claims upon us? And above all, sir, shall we fold our arms 
and see this moral pestilence sent among us to poison the 
public mind and do irremediable mischief?" 

During the summer of 1837 the city councils of Boston 
directed the then Mayor to confer with other municipal 
authorities on the subject with a view of effecting their 
cooperation in memorializing Congress for some remedial 
legislation to arrest the growing evil.^^ In Baltimore the 
same evil was experienced to an alarming extent at the 
same time. A ship load of 260 Hessian convicts were 
brought into port with manacles and fetters remaining on 
their hands and feet until within the day of their arrival. 
Mayor Smith was informed by the authorities at Washing- 
ton that there was no remedy, and so he had to permit the 
convicts to be landed, and turned loose to prey upon 
society.^ ^ 

In a Baltimore paper for July 3, 1830, we find an edi- 
torial,^^ from which the following are extracts: 

''Infamous conduct! — The ship 'Anacreon' arrived at 
Norfolk last week from Liverpool, with 168 passengers, 
three-fourths of whom were transported English paupers! 
And a great part of these are from 50 to 60 years of age — 
some older! ... If there was barbarity enough in the 

'"Niles' Register, Vol. LV, p. 46. Ibid., Vol. LV, p. 44. 

''Ibid., Vol. XXXVIII, p. 335. 


United States to ship off our old worn-out negroes to Eng- 
land, by cargoes, would their landing be permitted? We 
would not be cruel — but must resist, to the utmost possible 
point, such infamous speculations on our pockets. John 
Bull has squeezed the orange, but insolently casts the skins 
in our faces. . . . The landing of such must be prevented; 
and we trust that the general assembly of Maryland will 
adopt some strong regulations on the subject, and prevent 
the taxation of the good people of this state for the support 
of the British government." 

An investigation by the municipal government of New 
York City in 1837 disclosed the fact that 60,541 passengers 
arrived in New York that year and that the almshouse 
was full, containing 3,074 persons, of whom three-fourths 
were foreigners. The report to the Mayor stated, 'Tn fact 
our public charities are principally for the benefit of these 
foreigners; for of 1,209 persons admitted into the hospital 
at Bellevue, 982 were aliens." 

A memorial of the corporation of the city of New 1 ork, 
January 25, 1847, stated that within the last year the ships 
^'Sardinia" and ''Atlas" from Liverpool arrived in New York, 
one with 294 and the other with 314 steerage passengers, 
all paupers, sent by the parish of Groszimmern, Hesse 
Darmstadt, to which they belonged and by which their ex- 
penses were paid. Two hundred and thirty-four of these 
immigrants eventually found their way into the New York 

On January 19, 1839, Niles' Register reported a crowd of 
paupers which had arrived in New York from England, 
whose passage had been paid by the overseers of the poor 
at Edinburgh. The majority of them were still wearing 
the uniform of the poorhouse. This resulted in such serious 
objections that the consignees of the vessel finally agreed 
to take them back to Europe and to reimburse the city for 
the expenses incurred on their account. 

Other numbers of the Register contain similar instances. 
In fact the situation was getting serious for many cities. 

''Executive (House) Doc, 29th Cong., 2nd Ses., 54. 



The evils attendant upon immigration unregulated by the 
Federal Government made themselves felt to such an extent 
that on July 4, 1836, the United States Senate passed a 
resolution directing the Secretary of the Treasury to col- 
lect such facts as could be obtained respecting the deporta- 
tion of paupers from Great Britain and other places, ''ascer- 
taining, as nearly as possible, to what countries such per- 
sons are sent, where landed and what provision, if any, is 
made for their future support/' 

On April 30, 1838, the House of Representatives adopted 
this resolution: ''Resolved, That the President of the 
United States be requested to communicate to this House 
copies of all correspondence and communications which 
have passed between this and any foreign governments, 
and the officers and agents thereof, relating to the intro- 
duction of foreign paupers into the United States; also, 
what steps, if any, have been taken, to prevent the intro- 
duction of such paupers into the United States; provided 
such communication is not incompatible with the interests 
of the United States." 

In reply to this request, President Van Buren forwarded 
a number of documents to Congress, from which the fol- 
lowing extracts are taken.^* 

From the consulate of the United States, Kingston, Ja- 
maica, June 28, 1831: "I was called upon yesterday by 
most of the masters of American vessels now in this port, 
who complained of a law which obliges all foreign vessels 
under one hundred tons to take a pauper, or such other 
person that it may be desirable to get rid of, on board, and 
carry him or them off the island ; and those above that size, 
one for every hundred tons burden at the rate of $10 each. 
... I am informed that there are now about one hundred 
in the hospital at Kingston alone, and as there are scarcely 
any other foreigners trading to the colony but Americans, 
the greater part of those people will find their way to the 
United States in the manner already described." 

From the consulate of the United States, District of 

"Niles' Register, Vol. LV. 


Kingston-upon-Hull-Teeds, August 30, 1836: "The officers 
of the customs are well aware that paupers do proceed 
both to the United States and Canada; and it has been 
admitted by the owners of several vessels sailing there, that 
their passengers are paid by the overseers of the parishes 
to which they belong. The mode of doing this varies ac- 
cording to the trustworthiness of the pauper." 

Of special interest is the report from the consulate of the 
United States, Leipsic, March 8, 1837, signed by F. List.^^ 
"Not only paupers, but even criminals, are transported 
from the interior of the country to the sea-ports in order 
to be embarked there for the United States. A Mr. De 
Stein has lately made propositions to the smaller states of 
Saxony for transporting their criminals to the port of 
Bremen, and embarking them there for the United States 
at $75 per head, which offer has been accepted by several 
of them. ... It has of late, also, become a general practice 
in the towns and boroughs of Germany, to get rid of their 
paupers and vicious members, by collecting means for 
effectuating their passage to the United States among the 
inhabitants, and by supporting them from the public funds. 
This practice is highly injurious to the United States, as 
it burdens them with a host of paupers and criminals, and 
also deters the better and wealthier class of the inhabitants 
of this country from immigrating to the United States. 

"To remedy the evil, I would propose the following meas- 
ures. 1. That all persons intending to immigrate to the 
United States, would have to produce to the Consul of the 
United States, in the sea-port, a testimonial from the mag- 
istrate of their residence, purporting that they have not 
been punished for a crime (political punishments excepted) 
for the last three years; that they are able to maintain 
themselves by their labor or capital. 2. That the Consul 
of the United States, in the sea-port, should have to certify 
these testimonials; and that the masters of ships, who 

/'See House Report No. 1040, pp. 54-55; U. S. 25th Congress, 2nd Ses- 
sion. ''Report from Select Committee on Foreign Paupers and Naturali- 
zation Laws, July 2, 1838." 



would take a passenger without such a testimonial, should 
have to pay a considerable fine on landing him in the 1 
United States. 3. That the Consul of the United States I 
in the sea-port, should have power to refuse his certificate 
to all those immigrants who, in his opinion, would become 
a burden to the community on their arrival in the United , 
States." These recommendations concerning over sea in-j 
spection have been of unusual importance in recent years, 
especially since the principles involved were incorporated 
in the Act of 1924 for the first time. 

From the United States Consulate at Liverpool, Sep- 
tember 15, 1836: ''I find it has been the practice with many 
parishes, for some years past, to send abroad such of their 
superabundant population as would consent to go, and 
although there has never been a restriction as to the place, 
they have invariably preferred the United States, and 
ninety out of a hundred. New York." 

From the United States Consulate at Dublin, September 
1, 1836: ''Our poor, in this country, are very poor indeed — 
so poor as to be altogether without the means of support, 
even for a few days. ... It is by no means an uncommon 
occurrence for individuals possessed of large landed prop- 
erties in this country to agree with the tenants to pay the 
expense of their passage to America." 

-Other consulate reports might be quoted and instances 
of this sort might be multiplied, but these will suffice to 
prove that the practice of transporting paupers and even 
criminals was a common one during this period. It did 
much to create that feeling of hostility to immigrants 
which manifested itself so strongly during and after the 

No further action by Congress was had on the subject 
during the remainder of the session. In fact, no further 
movement on the subject was made in Congress until the 
session of 1844-5, and then no definite action was had. 
During the session of 1844-5, Hamilton Fish of New York, 
again introduced the subject into the House of Represen- 

" Congressional Globe of 1837-8, p. 489. 


tatives, and a resolution was, on motion, adopted, directing 
blthe committee on the Judiciary to "report to the House 
whether any, and if any, what further legislation is neces- 
sary to prevent the introduction of foreign paupers or 
criminals." However, no report seems to have been made 
or further action had.^'^ In the Senate, at the same session, 
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana offered a similar resolution, but 
it does not appear to have ever been considered or passed.^^ 
Consular reports on the importation of foreign paupers 
and criminals in 1845-46, in addition to a thorough investi- 
gation by the committee on the Judiciary in the Senate 
are additional proof that the practices had not then ceased 
of shipping paupers and criminals from European countries 
to the United States. Some of the testimony before the 
Senate committee is indeed startling. 

Testifying before this Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
March 3, 1845, Dr. S. B. Martin, health officer of Baltimore 
for fifteen years, stated how he had plead with the local 
authorities year after year to check in some way the great 
influx of paupers and convicts, in addition to "the halt, 
the lame and the blind." 

Abraham Cuyk testified that he had been an agent for 
forwarding immigrants to the United States for four years. 
He stated that in November, 1843, the Bremen barque 
"Republic" arrived here with 28 convicts from the Kingdom 
of Wurtemberg. Moses Catzenstein, a passenger on the 
same boat, testified as follows: "Among the passengers 
were 28 criminals, sent out of the country by their re- 
spective governments, and accompanied by a police officer 
until the ship was fairly at sea, when each of the 28 persons 
were handed a certain sum of money by the police officer, 
and then he left the ship with the pilot, and the ship pro- 
ceeded on her voyage. Nearly all the persons alluded to 
are now in Baltimore." 

Many other witnesses testified before the Senate Com- 

" Congressional Globe 1844-45, p. 209. 
^Ibid., p. 48. 

"Senate Document 173, 28th Congress, Second Session. 



mittee in like manner to their knowledge of foreign govern- 
ments sending paupers and criminals to the United States. 
Some time after these disclosures, Hon. Geo. H. Goundie, 
American Consul at Basle, Switzerland, addressed a letter 
to the New York city authorities March 27, 1846,^^ in 
which he apprised them that the evil of sending paupers 
and criminals into this country was on the increase. Writ- 
ing to the Collector of the Port of New York March 3, 1855, 
from the U. S. Consulate at Zurich, Switzerland, Hon. G. H. 
Goundie stated: ^'I have just been informed that the 
Commune of Niederwyl, Switzerland, have been forwarding 
320 of their poorest people to the United States." The fol- 
lowing letter from the State Department at Washington, 
Sept. 3, 1855, addressed to the Mayor of New Orleans, 
shows the means resorted to by those then engaged in trans- 
porting persons to the United States in order to avoid de- 
tection : 

'^Circulars issued by the immigration agents in the in- 
terior of Germany caution immigrants who are deformed, 
crippled, or maimed, etc., against taking passage to New 
York, and advise them to go by way of Baltimore, New 
Orleans, or Quebec, where the laws prohibiting the landing 
of immigrants of the above classes do not apply . . . 
W. Hunter, Assistant Secretary." 

Just when the practice finally stopped it is difficult to 
say. Even as late as 1884-1885 thousands of immigrants 
were sent from Ireland to the United States and Canada 
partly at state expense and partly at the expense of the 
''Tuke Fund," some of whom were admittedly paupers. 

While the dangers from pauperism and criminality were 
probably the leading causes of the intense hostility to immi- 
gration after 1830, yet broader and deeper objections were 
beginning to be felt and to be expressed in current writings. 
''In the North American Review for April, 1835, there is a 
very sane, calm and convincing article by Mr. A. H. 

**See Senate Document No. 161, U. S. 29th Congress, 2nd Session. Also 
see House Doc. No. 54, U. S. 29th Congress, 2nd Session, for a report on 
the emigration of German paupers. 


Everett, in which the disadvantages of immigration are set 
forth. Many of the stock arguments of today are well set 
forth here, among them, of course, the dangers from pau- 
perism and crime, but also the dangers of a heterogeneous 
population, of poor assimilation, congestion in cities, misuse 
of political power, and the growth of foreign colonies. The 
author questions whether the immigrants are really filling 
the demand for labor, and urges the necessity of furnishing 
the immigrants with information about different sections 
of the country, and advising them about their destination. 
He also feels the need of much greater discrimination in 
the admission of aliens." 

By 1840 we begin to hear arguments against immigration 
on the ground that the immigrants do more work for less 
money than the native workingmen, which indicates that 
the native workers were beginning to fear the economic 
competition of cheaper foreign labor. It is the foreshadow- 
ing of modern conditions and modern thought and marks 
the approaching end to the American frontier.*^ 

Another serious cause of hostility to immigration was 
religious in character, viz., a hatred and fear of the Roman 
Catholic religion, to which the great majority of the Irish 
adhered. It was at this period in our history that so many 
Irish Catholics were coming to our country. Dire prophe- 
cies as to the submerging of our institutions and the in- 
evitable downfall of the Republic through Catholicism 
abounded in the newspapers. Throughout the sections of 
the country where the Irish settled, anti-Catholic riots were 
not infrequent, even necessitating at times the calling out 
of troops. Open hostility was displayed toward the Irish 
laborers on the canals and railroads in many parts of the 
country. Professor McMaster points out that at the spring 
elections of 1834 in New York City complaint was made 
on the part of the Whigs that gangs of Irishmen "armed 
with stones and bludgeons drove them from the polls, at- 

"Fairchild, op. cit., p. 73. 

■"Thus, by 1840 virtually every argument heard to-day against immigra- 
tion was being used. 



tacked their committee in its own room, put the! 
Mayor, Sheriff, and posse to flight, and terrorized the 
city." It was necessary to call out the state militia in 
Boston in 1837 when a mob attacked and sacked the houses 
of the Irish. There were also anti-foreign riots of more or 
less serious proportions in Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Boston, 
New York, and other cities, most of which were directed 
against the Irish, although in Cincinnati the rioting was 
directed against the Germans.*^ 

"These riots, the often reiterated statement that the 
immigrants were paupers and criminals, the antagonism of 
native workers in various lines of employment, the political 
attacks by foreign born upon the Government, the wide 
spread political organization of the foreigners and their con- 
spicuous participation in city, state, and national elections, 
disputes over the use of the Bible in the public schools, the 
demands of the Irish Catholics that public support be given 
to their parochial schools — all these and other tendencies 
had given rise as early as the thirties to a public sentiment 
of antagonism towards the immigrant." 

Professor McMaster puts it thus: "Bringing with them' 
all the prejudices of their native land, and while still in 
character and opinion what they were while a part of some 
European Society, they were in many states invested with 
the franchise, and the whole administration of government 
was subject to change by men just arrived from a land 
where they possessed no voice in the affairs of state. To 
such as thought on the matter of immigration, to such as 
considered the number and character of the newcomers, 
what they did and where they went after reaching our 
shores, the time seemed at hand for regulation or restric- 
tion." 46 

Due to this increasing and bitter hostility to immigration, 
immigration and its effects became an issue of the very first 

*" McMaster, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 227. 

"The opposition to the Irish seems to have been greater than that 
toward the Germans and Scandinavians, for the Irish tended to settle in 
the cities, while the latter tended to move westward into the interior, 
Wame, op. cit., pp. 238-9. "^McMaster, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 421. 


importance and were the cause of one of the most remark- 
lable political movements in American history, viz., the 
'nativistic movement or ''Native Americanism." The begin- 
ning of this movement is evident as early as 1835, in which 
year there was a Nativist candidate for Congress in New 
York City. In 1836 the party nominated a candidate for 
mayor of New York. Nativist societies were formed in 
Germantown, Pa., and in Washington, D. C, in 1837, and 
two years later the party was organized in Louisiana, where 
a state convention was held in 1841. The Native American 
Association of the United States, which was formed in 
Washington in 1837, sought among its objects to cherish na- 
tive American sentiment, to exclude foreign opinions and 
doctrines ''introduced by foreign paupers and European 
political adventurers," to exclude foreigners from office 
under the State and Federal Governments, and to procure 
a repeal of the naturalization law. The association planned 
the publication of a newspaper to espouse its objects. In 
1835 the platform of the Native Americans in New York 
stated, "elevate no person of foreign birth to any office of 
honor, trust, or profit in the United States." 

Numerous memorials poured into Congress, praying for 
legislation, so numerous were the evils resulting from the 
steadily increasing stream of immigration that was pouring 
into the United States. ^"^ The petitioners saw with great 
concern the influx of Roman Catholics. To such persons, 
as men, and to their religion as a religion, they had no 
objection. But against their political opinions, interwoven 
with their religious belief, they asked legislation for they 
felt that their union of church and state and their alle- 
giance to the Pope required such action. 

Immigration was a prominent issue in the presidential 
election of 1844 in which James K. Polk defeated Henry 
Clay. The bitter and unrelenting opposition to Henry Clay 
on account of Mr. Frelinghuysen, the candidate for Vice- 
President, who was a Protestant professor of Christianity 
and a well-known and active member of the American Bible 

Executive Document No. 70, 25th Congress, Second Session, Vol. II. 



Society, did much to alarm the public at the foreign influ- 
ence in our midst and it aroused indignation against those ij 
who controlled it. ' 

An article in Freeman's Journal, probably written by 
Archbishop Hughes contained the following impudent | 
threat: ''Irishmen learn in America to bide their time. . . . * 
At length the propitious time will come — some accidental, 
sudden collision, and a Presidential campaign at hand. We 
will use, then, the very profligacy of our politicians for our 
purposes. They will want to buy the Irish vote and we 
will tell them how they can buy it in a lump from Maine 
to California." 

The charge was made by the foreign elements in Brown- ~ 
son's Review of July, 1844, that Mr. Frelinghuysen ''con- 
centrates in himself the whole spirit of 'Native Ameri- 
canism and no Popery.' " | 

The Boston Pilot of October 31, 1844, ^ well known ! 
Roman Catholic organ of that day, contained the following 
advice to voters: "We recommend to you no party; we 
condemn no candidate but one, and he is Theodore Freling- 

The private correspondence of Mr. Clay shows that, in j 
the opinion of himself and his leading friends, his defeat li 
was owing to the foreign vote that was arrayed against i 
them. In a letter, dated Buffalo, November 11, 1844, Mr. I 
Fillmore wrote to Mr. Clay, "The Abolitionists and foreign i 
Catholics have defeated us in this state. . . . Our oppo- j 
nents, by pointing to the Native Americans and to Mr. 
Frelinghuysen, drove the foreign Catholics from us." 

In a letter dated Baltimore, November 28, 1844, Mr. : 
John H. Westword wrote to Mr. Clay, "It was foreign in- 
fluences, aided by the Irish and Dutch vote, that caused I 
our defeat. As a proof, in my native city alone, in the ; 
short space of two months there were over 1,000 natural- 

In a letter addressed to Mr. Clay, by Mr. Freylinghuysen, 
dated New York, November 9, we find the statement that, j 
"More than 3,000 have been naturalized in this city alone 


since the first of October. It is an alarming fact, that this 
foreign vote has decided the great questions of American 
policy, and contracted a nation's gratitude." 

Several years before the organization of the American 
party, The United States Magazine and Democratic Review 
of July, 1850, held the following language — the argument 
of which is often heard at the present time, in favor of 
immigration restriction : 

''These European reformers are flocking hither by thou- 
sands, bringing with them the pestilent products of the 
worn-out soil of the Old World — which, it would seem, 
whenever it falls into labor, produces nothing but monsters. 

.They bring with them a host of extravagant notions of 
freedom, or a plenty of crude, undigested theories which 
are utterly irreconcilable with obedience to laws of our 
own making and from a constitution of our own adopting. 
They come with their heads full of a division of property. 
. . . The Socialists, who are come and coming among us, 

I are silently making an impression on the people of our great 
cities, where all the sweepings of the country are gathered 
into one great mass of ignorance and corruption. They 
are instilling into them principles at war with Society . . 

I In the Pierce-Scott Presidential campaign of 1852 Scott 

I was accused of ''nativism" and this was a factor in his 
defeat. Rhodes, in his ''History of the United States," states 

! that "the large Irish and German immigration of the past 
few years have given the foreign vote an importance never 
before attached to it, and this is the first Presidential cam- 
paign in which we light upon those now familiar efforts 
to cajole the German and Irish citizens." The foreign vote 
in elections has ever since been an element of considerable 
importance. Hardly a campaign has passed without the 
public being greatly agitated because of the conspicuous 

; presence at the polls of unnaturalized foreigners. It is cer- 
tainly true that the foreign vote has at times virtually 
decided the great questions of American policy. That this 
foreign element is perhaps stronger than ever and has a 

i powerful voice in party platforms and presidential elections 



was evident in the political conventions, in the party planks 
and in the campaign speeches of 1924. 

One feature of the election of 1852 was the prominence 
of a new political party which called itself the American 
party, but which is better known by the appellation of 
Know-nothings. It continued the opposition to immigra- 
tion as manifested in the Native American Movement. 
Americans, and Americans only, should rule America, came 
to be its fundamental doctrine. Their cry now began to 
be Washington's famous order, ^Tut None but Americans 
on Guard Tonight." ''The immediate and practical aim in 
view was that foreigners and Catholics should be excluded 
from all national, state, county, and municipal offices ; that 
strenuous efforts should be made to change the naturaliza- 
tion laws so that the immigrant could not become a citizen 
until after a residence of twenty-one years in this country. 
No one can deny that ignorant foreign suffrage had grown 
to be an evil of immense proportion." 

In 1854 this party carried the election in Massachusetts 
and Delaware and polled a great number of votes in New 
York. In 1855 it elected governors and legislatures in New 
York and four New England States, and in the South it 
was more or less successful in nine States. In 1856, it 
appeared as a full-fledged political organization and nom- 
inated Fillmore as a candidate for the Presidency. In 1856 
eight of the thirty-two states had native American gov- 
ernors. In the Thirty-fifth Congress, in 1857, the party 
had five Senators and fourteen Representatives. In the 
Thirty-sixth Congress, it had two Senators and twenty- 
three Representatives, all from the South. But after the 
Thirty-sixth Congress it went to pieces rapidly and had 
no representation in any subsequent Congress. 

However, the bitter hostility to immigration continued 
and the evils grew worse. The Molly Maguire disturbance 
in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania after 1850 created 
bitter hostility to immigration. In January, 1855, the 
problem was so serious in New York City that Mayor Wood 

Rhodes, History of the Uni'ed States, Vol. II, p. 512. 


addressed a letter to the President, in which he asked the 
interference of the general government to protect our coun- 
try against these foreign aggressions. Mayor Wood also 
addressed our ministers, consuls, and other representatives 
in Europe, invoking their aid and cooperation to put an 
end to the evil. About the same time resolutions of in- 
quiry on the subject, especially concerning paupers and 
convicts, were introduced in the Senate by Senator Cooper 
of Pennsylvania. So emboldened had some of the foreign 
powers become in making our country the receptacle for 
the dregs and off-scourings of their population, and thus 
relieving themselves of the burden of pauperism and crime, 
that some of them had the audacity to deny our right to 
prevent them from doing so.^^ 

One of the governments doing so was Wurtemberg, which 
in 1855 impudently denied our right to return paupers and 
criminals and passed public resolutions of protest, which 
have had a familiar echo in the recent protests of several 
nations against the Act of 1924. These resolutions read in 
part: ^'Whereas, It is desirable that those who have once 
emigrated to America, and especially those who have been 
transported thither at the expense of the State, or the com- 
munes, and are unable, whether or not it be from any fault 
of their own, to earn their subsistence, should not return 
here, to be a burden to the State or the commune, which 
in that case will have defrayed the expense of their journey 
in vain: and 

^'Whereas, The American authorities are scarcely author- 
ized to send back those who, having once been admitted 
to the country, cannot earn their subsistence in America, 
. . . therefore, 

^'Resolved, That necessary steps are to be taken to pre- 
vent their transportation back to this country." 

The Wurtemberg denial of our rights to protect our- 
selves against their criminals and paupers, was, in itself 

Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Represen- 
tatives on "Foreign Criminals and Paupers," August 16, 1856. U. S. 34th 
Congress^ 1st Session, House Doc, No. 3$9. 



recognized at that time by the House Committee, as strong 
evidence of the necessity which existed for doing so. 

That thoughtful persons were then studying the prob- 
lems resulting from immigration and were urging action to ! 
restrict the tide is evident from what has been written, j 
However, the following facts set forth in a startling manner j 
how carefully they were investigating the problems result- 
ing especially from the immigration of paupers and crim- 
inals. The methods used in collecting and setting forth 
their facts seem to be similar, if not identical, in many cases j- 
with the methods used in the investigations of recent years, [ 
as noted below. ! 

"Whatever the causes which have of late years produced ! 
this immense immigration into this country,^^ it is cer- 
tainly an undeniable fact that the 'palpable and admitted ' 
growing influence of the foreign born population of the 
United States has, for several years past, been a source of 
anxiety and dissatisfaction to a considerable number of 
our native citizens.' This is so apparent that a writer on 
the subject of immigration, styling himself a foreigner, 
frankly admits it and says: 'The Kensington riots, the 
Southwark disturbances, and the present position of civil, 
political, and religious feeling, confirm the fact, and render 
it an important and interesting subject, worthy of the 
attention and candid consideration of us all.' " 

The same author (J. P. Sanderson), writing on the pe- 
cuniary advantage of immigration, set forth an argument 
used frequently at the present time against immigration. 
''It would be probably a much safer and more accurate 
calculation, to assume that the average amount of prop- 
erty brought by each immigrant during the last ten years 
was $15.^^ Bishop Hughes himself claims no larger ; 
amount; for but a short time since he averred in the Free- 

"In a table the author (J. P. Sanderson), states that in 1850 the total of [ 
all of our population, exclusive of Anglo-Saxon blood was 8,263,498; the 
total population of the United States in 1850 being 23,263,488. 

"Sanderson, J. P., Republican Landmarks, p. 19 (1856). 

" A statement in Jahrbiicher in 1851 claimed the average amount of ; 
property brought by each German immigrant to have been between $64 ' 
and $65. The Irish were said to average $30 each. 



man's Journal that to be the sum. Taking that, then, as 
the amount, what is the aggregate sum that has been 
brought into the country by them from the beginning of 
1850 to the close of 1854? During that period 1,983,882 
persons are reported by the State Department at Wash- 
ington to have arrived, which at the rate of $15 per head, 
would make the sum of $29,758,220. Now let us take an 
account of the other side of the question and strike a bal- 
ance sheet. By the general report of the British Immi- 
gration Commissioners, made on the first of May last, the 
amounts remitted from this country to Ireland alone during 
the same period were as follows: in 1850, £957,000; in '51, 
£990,000; in '52, £1,404,000; in '53, £1,439,000; and in '54, 
£1,730,000 — which when converted into our currency sums 
up to $28,948,800. We have thus a balance left in favor of 
this country of less than $1,000,000, without taking into 
account the amounts sent to Ireland through private 
sources, which cannot be ascertained, and without counting 
a dollar of the large amount remitted by the Germans and 
immigrants from other countries for like purposes^ It is 
clear, therefore, that immigrants do not, by the property 
they bring with them, add to our national wealth, but that, 
on the contrary, they cont/^'ibute to swell the coffers of the 
countries of their birth, by remitting a larger amount of 
money than they bring with them.^^ 

^'But we are not yet done with the reckoning. The case 
has not been much more than half stated. . . . Having 
contributed nothing to the aggregate wealth of the country, 
what claim then have they to its charitable consideration? 
And yet, whose means but the natives of this country and 
those now identified with them, feeds their paupers and 
educates their children? And how much of the public 
expenses is incurred by the crimes committed by the vicious 
portions of them, which has to be borne also by those 

" It is interesting to note in this connection that several of the European 
countries stated in 1924, if the United States put into force drastic immigra- 
tion restrictions, that they would not bo able to meet thoir war debt obliga- 
tions, since the flow of money from immigrants in the United States would 
be lessened seriously. 



among whom they have sought a home? These are ques- j 
tions to be taken into consideration before the balance j 
sheet can be properly closed, and when they are, they will i 
be found to put at rest the claim now preferred in favor I 
of immigration." ! 

The census returns of 1850 stated that the amount of the j 
public means expended in the year preceding 1850, for the | 
support of paupers, was $2,954,806 ; the number of paupers j 
supported within the same year, in whole or in part, was j 
134,972, of which over one-half were foreigners, there being ji 
66,434 native born and 68,538 of foreign birth. Of the I 
foreign born population in the United States at that . 
time, one of at least every thirty- three was a pauper, sup- 
ported at public expense, while of the native born,^^ only 
one of every three hundred was thus a charge on the public. 

From other sources than the census returns of 1850, 
such as the Prison Discipline Journal, American Register, 
American Almanac, etc., additional information can be 
secured to set forth the reasons for the then existing and I 
developing opposition to immigration in the United States, i 
especially against the pauper classes. 

In Massachusetts, there were relieved and maintained at 
the public expense, from 1837 to 1840, the aggregate num- | 
ber of 8,671 persons, of whom 6,104 were foreigners, being 
over two-thirds of the number; for the years 1850-1853, 
the whole number amounted to 107,776, of which 48,469 \ 
were foreigners. Of these over 40,000 were from England 
and Ireland. The number received into the Baltimore 
almshouse during the year 1851 was 2,150, "of v/hich num- 
ber about 900 were Irish and German," and of 2,350 ad- 
mitted to the same institution in 1854, there were 1,397 i 
foreigners, of whom 641 were Germans and 593 Irish. 

The Society for the relief of the poor in Philadelphia ' 
reported that for the year ending March 31, 1855, there 
were received into their Home 1,266 persons, of whom 

"Sanderson, J. P., Republican Landmarks, pp. 25-26. For a criticism 
of this argument based on such calculations, see Kapp, F., Immigration, 
Ch. VIII, on "The Capital Value of Immi-ratirn to This Country" (1870). j 

"'Viz., 2,244,625, ""Viz., 19,979,563, 


there were 816 foreigners; 605 of whom were Irish. The 
number of paupers received into the Blockley (Philadel- 
phia) Almshouse in 1848 was 3,584, of whom 2,345 were 
foreigners; there being among them 1,650 Irish, 435 Ger- 
mans and 227 English. On March 1, 1855, the census of 
the inmates of Blockley Almshouse showed that there were 
558 natives and 1,571 foreign whites therein. 

Over the 12-year period 1842-1854, the aggregate num- 
ber of persons received into the Pennsylvania Hospital 
at Philadelphia was 17,834, of whom 10,543 were for- 
eigners; of the foreigners more than two-thirds were from 

At the Charity Hospital in New Orleans the number of 
admissions in 1848 was 11,945 of whom 10,280 were for- 
eigners. In 1853 the numbers were 13,750 admitted, of 
whom 12,333 were foreigners. 

Many similar statistics might be adduced, all showing the 
same state of things in different sections of the country at 
that time — all setting forth the reasons for the developing 
opposition to at least certain types or classes of immi- 

The following extract from a letter of Jeremiah Clemens, 
at that time United States Senator from Alabama, is of 
great interest and value, for in his investigations he seems 
to have used the same methods employed by Dr. H. H. 
Laughlin in his institutional survey, reported to the House 
Committee, November 21, 1922.^8 

^'By reference to the annual report of the Governor of 
the Aims-House, I find there were in the New York Aims- 
House, during the year 1853, 2,198 inmates — of these only 
535 were natives, and 1,663 foreigners, supported at the ex- 
pense of the city. And now I propose to use on our side 
the argument of our opponents, that there are only 3,000,- 
000 foreigners to 20,000,000 natives. According to that 
ratio there ought to be about seven natives to one for- 

" Similar facts have been set forth in recent years to prove the necessity 
for restriction of immigration. 

"^Dr. H. H. Laughlin's report is explained in full in the chapter, "Back 
to 1890." 



eigner in the Aims-House ; whereas we find more than three i 
foreigners to one native. No wonder that a people who I 
are taxed to support such a body of paupers should be the 
first to set about devising means to get rid of them. In ; 
the Bellevue Hospital, in the same city, there were 702 1 ^ 
Americans — 4,134 foreigners; now the proportion rises to ' 
nearly six to one. There were the outdoor poor — 957 | 
native adults and 1,044 children — 3,131 foreign adults and j ft 
5,229 foreign children. In the city prisons there were dur- ! 
ing the year 6,102 Americans — 22,229 foreigners. In the i p 
Lunatic Asylum there were admitted from the year 1847 | o 
to 1853, 779 Americans— 2,381 foreigners. . . . These fig-, i t 
ures are far more conclusive than any language could be to - ! 1 
prove the necessity of arresting the tide of immigration, j e 
Let every American impress them deeply upon his memory : s 
42,369 foreign paupers and invalids; 2,381 lunatics, and I 
22,229 criminals, taxing the industry and blighting the I t 
prosperity of a single city. In that list of crimes is em- ' ( 
braced murder, rape, arson, robbery, perjury, everything ; i 
which is damning to the character of the individual, and i i 
everything which is dangerous to society." J i 

Advocates of immigration restriction in the fifties set ! ] 
forth figures concerning crime to prove the necessity for 
a check on immigration. According to De Bow's Census I 
Compendium the whole number of criminals convicted in | 
the year 1848, not including California, was 26,679, of which j 
number 12,988 were natives and 13,691 were foreigners, be- | 
ing one conviction out of every 1580 of the native and one ' 
out of about every 165 of the foreign population in the ;l 
United States at that time. ; 

Of those convicted 10,279 were in New York, of whom ^| 
6,317 were foreigners. In Massachusetts those convicted 
numbered 7,250 of whom there were 259 more than one- 
half foreigners. In all the New England states more than 
one-half of those convicted were foreigners. : 

In a speech advocating immigration restriction, which ^ 

"It would sorm that this is virtually tho same basic plan used by Dr. 
H. H. Laughlin in his report to the House Committee, November 21, 1922. 


he delivered in the United States Senate January 25, 1855, 
Hon. James Cooper of Pennsylvania stated that in the 
conviction for capital offenses the proportion of foreign to 
native born was startling, and that out of 220 convictions 
which took place in about eighteen months in the seven 
states of New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Louisiana, 
New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Maryland, there were 138 
of foreigners to 82 of natives.^^ 

Virtually all of this agitation and opposition, however, 
proved to be futile in the direction of restricting the volume 
of immigration for the great, almost limitless West was still 
to be settled. While a few states passed more laws after 
1840, yet these accomplished little for they were easily 
evaded. The problem was no longer one which could be 
solved by state action. Formerly this had been sufficient 
but it was no longer able to stem the tide. Just as the 
trust problem in the United States grew too large for state 
control and demanded federal legislation; just as the rail- 
road problem outgrew the capacity of the states to deal 
with it successfully and forced Congress to legislate; just 
so did immigration become after 1830 so big and vital a 
problem that it demanded legislation from Congress. How- 
ever, *'it must not be forgotten that at the time opposition 
to immigration was becoming strongest there was an even 
more important subject engrossing the attention of the 
people and one which then loomed much more threaten- 
ingly on the political horizon, a subject of internal dif- 
ference that was dividing the American people much more 
fundamentally, a subject that was to plunge them into 
bloody fratricidal strife. In the throes of it the evils of 
immigration were lost sight of." 'State rights was the 
issue through all these years, so that during all this period 
of agitation prior to the War Between the States, oppo- 
sition to immigration was not sufficiently strong to place 
any restrictive legislation on the Federal Statute books. 

""For many additional facts see Buscy, S. C, Immigration, Its Evils 
and Consequences (1856), and Sanderson, J. P., Republican Landmarks 

^ Wame, op. cit., p. 245. 



As a result immigration was left almost entirely by the 
Federal Government in the hands of the separate states 
to be dealt with under their police powers as they thought 
best for their own safety and welfare. In the next chapter 
we shall study the problem as to who has the authority 
over immigration in the United States. However, the im- 
portant thing to note here is that federal legislation on 
the subject was not fundamentally necessary before the 
thirties and that, though necessary after then, it was impos- 
sible to secure it, not because the people were not opposed 
to immigration,^- but because the question of state rights 
had to be settled first. Congress had asserted its power in 
the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to keep out or prohibit 
the importation of aliens. Its constitutionality was denied 
by several States. What was the power of the Federal Gov- 
ernment and what were the powers of the State Govern- 
ments on the subject? Into a study of this problem, let 
us now enter. 

"The War Between the States, following the industrial panic of 1857, 
naturally checked the tide of immigration and, for about a decade, the 
excessive fear of immigration was lessened. The liberal homestead act of 
1862 was also partly responsible for this change of attitude toward the 
alien elements. 


Power of Congress Over Immigration * 

Congressional authority under Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution — 
Cases — The internal police power of the states — Cases — Congressional au- 
thority over immigration under the power to regulate commerce — Cases — 

How far Congress had the power under the ninth section 
of the first Article of the Constitution of the United States 
to regulate, restrain or prohibit the immigration of for- 
eigners, or whether it had any power over the subject, 
was a disputed question for many years. The ninth section 
of the first article provides that: "the migration or impor- 
tation of such persons as any of the States, now existing, 
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Con- 
gress prior to the year 1808, but a tax may be imposed on 
such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each per- 
son. This was undoubtedly understood by the framers of 
the constitution to apply altogether to slaves and it was 
so construed in the Federalist, the forty-second number of 
which, written by Mr. Madison, contains the following in 
relation to it : 

"It were doubtless to be wished that the power of pro- 
hibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed 
until the year 1808. ... It ought to be considered as a 
point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty 
years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic 
which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism 
of modern policy. . . . Attempts have been made to per- 
vert this clause into an objection against the constitution, 
by representing it on one side as a criminal toleration of 
an illicit practice, and on another as calculated to prevent 

*For early studies on this topic see Sanderson, J. P., op. cit., Ch. XI; 
i Busey, op. cit., Ch. XIII; and Kapp, op. cit., Ch. VIII-IX. 




voluntary and beneficial immigration from Europe to 
America. I mention these misconstructions not with the 
view to give them an answer — for they deserve none — but 
as specimens of the manner and spirit in which some have 
thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed 
government." ] 

The language used in the constitution, however, seems to 
be such as may well justify the question, raised by many 
persons at that time, whether it could not have been ap- I 
plied clearly and fairly to the importation of foreign con- ; 
victs and paupers, and there were many who contended ' 
that it applied to all immigrants, conferring upon Congress 
the power to prohibit the admission of all ''such persons," 
and necessarily including the power to admit them on such 
conditions as it might have thought proper to impose, 
which would, of course, have carried with it the right of 
taxing them. It was certainly deemed broad enough at the 
time of the adoption of the constitution, notwithstanding 
the cavalier manner in which Mr. Madison dismissed the 
objections urged against it, to cover immigrants generally, 
while some supposed it might cover convicts.^ 

Luther Martin, in his celebrated letter to the Maryland 
Legislature, explanatory of the course pursued by him in 
the convention which framed the constitution, alludes to 
this provision as follows: 

'The design of this clause is to prevent the General 
Government from prohibiting the importation of slaves; 
but the same reasons which caused them to strike out the 
word 'national,' and not admit the word 'stamps' influenced 
them here to guard against the word 'slaves.' They anx- 
iously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which 
might be odious in the ears of Americans, although they 
were willing to admit into their system those things which 
the expression signified; and hence it is that the clause is 
so worded as really to authorize the General Government 
to impose a duty of ten dollars on every foreigner who 
comes into a State to become a citizen, whether he comes 

^Madison State Papers, Vol. Ill, pp. 1429-30. 


absolutely free, or qualified so as a servant; although this 
is contrary to the design of the framers, and the duty was 
only meant to extend to the importation of slaves." ^ 

James Wilson, who was himself a leading and influential 
member of the Convention which framed the constitution, 
and also the prominent champion of it in the Pennsylvania 
Convention, which was convened to ratify or reject it, re- 
ferred in a speech, in the last named body to this particular 
provision, as follows: 

''A little impartiality and attention will discover the care 
that the Convention took in selecting their language. The 
words are — 'the migration or importation of such persons, 
etc., shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 
1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importa- 
tion.' It is observable here that the term migration is 
dropped, when a tax or duty is mentioned, so that Congress 
have power to impose the tax only on those imported." ^ 

In the North Carolina Convention Mr. Galloway made 
the objection that he did ''not wish to see the tax on the 
importation extended to all persons whatsoever," and gave 
as his reasons therefor, that the situation of the South was 
different from the North, saying, "we want citizens, they 
do not." Mr. Iredell, afterwards one of the judges of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, replied to these re- 
marks, as follows: 

"The worthy gentleman has I believe misunderstood this 
clause. . . . The committee will observe the distinction be- 
tween the two words migration and importation. The first 
part of the clause will extend to persons who come into this 
country as free people, or as slaves bought. But the last 
part extends towards slaves only. The word migration 
refers to free persons; but the word importation refers to 
slaves because free people cannot be said to be imported. 
The tax, therefore, is only to be laid on slaves who are im- 
ported, and not on free persons who migrate." ^ 

From these statements it would seem that both Justices 

"Elliot's Debates, Vol. I, p. 372. 'Elliot's Debates, Vol. II, p. 453. 

* Elliot's Debates, Vol. IV, p, 101. 



Wilson and Iredell seem to concede the power to Congress 
under this provision of the constitution to prohibit, after 
1808, the migration of foreigners as well as the importation 
of slaves, and only contended that the right of taxation was 
confined by Congress to the importation of slaves. Others 
admitted that such was the intention of the framers of the 
constitution, but contended that it conferred the power to 
tax voluntary immigrants as well as slaves. According to 
the views of these gentlemen, the General Government had 
the power, under this section of the constitution, over the 
subject of immigration as well as the importation of slaves. 
This view seems to have been sustained by various judicial 

Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Gibbons 
V. Ogden,^ in which case the Court decided that the power 
to regulate commerce, so far as it extends, is exclusively 
vested in Congress, and that no part of it can be exercised 
by a State in violation of any law of Congress, used the 
following language in relation to the ninth section of the 
first article of the constitution: 

"The section which restrains Congress from prohibiting 
the migration or importation of such persons as any of the 
States may think proper to admit until 1808, has always 
been considered as an exception from the power to regulate 
commerce; and certainly seems to class migration with 
importation. Migration applies as appropriately to volun- 
tary, as importation does to involuntary, arrivals; and, 
so far as an exception from a power proves its existence, 
this section proves that the power to regulate commerce 
applies equally to the regulation of vessels employed in 
transporting men, who pass from place to place voluntarily, 
and to those who pass involuntarily.'^ 

In the same case. Justice Johnson, who concurred in the 
decision of the Court but delivered a separate opinion, gave 
his views on this point as follows: 

"Commerce, in its simplest signification, means an ex- 

•9 Wheaton Rep. 216 (1824). 


change of goods; but in the advancement of society, labor, 
transportation, intelhgence, care, and various mediums of 
exchange, become commodities, and enter into commerce; 
the subject, the vehicle, the agent, and their various opera- 
tions, become the objects of commercial regulation. . . . 
That such was the understanding of the framers of the con- 
stitution, is conspicuous from provisions contained in that 
instrument. The first clause of the ninth section, not only 
considers the right of controlling personal ingress or migra- 
tion, as implied in the powers previously vested in Congress 
over commerce, but acknowledge it as a subject of revenue. 
And, although the leading object of this section undoubt- 
edly was the importation of slaves, yet the words are obvi- 
ously calculated to comprise persons of all descriptions, and 
to recognize in Congress a power to prohibit, when the 
States permit, although they cannot permit when the States 

In the cases of Smith v. Turner and Norris v. City of 
Boston,^ in which the constitutionality of the passenger 
laws of New York and Massachusetts came under consider- 
ation and were declared void, Justice McKinley delivered 
the following opinion, which seems to accord with those 
of Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Johnson: 

have never heard a full and satisfactory argument on 
the first clause of the ninth section of the first article of 
the Constitution. Yet, on full examination of the clause, 
connected with other provisions of the constitution, it has 
had a controlling influence on my mind in the determina- 
tion of the case before us. Some of my brethren have in- 
sisted that the clause here quoted applies exclusively to 
the importation of slaves. If the phrase ^the migration or 
importation of such persons' was intended by the conven- 
tion to mean slaves only, why, in the assertion of the tax- 
ing power, did they, in the same clause, separate migra- 
tion from importation, and use the following language? — 
'But a tax or duty may be imposed on such persons, not 
exceeding ten dollars for each person.' All will admit that 

•7 Howard 283 (1848). 



if the word migration were excluded from the clause, it 
would apply to slaves only. An unsuccessful attempt was 
made in the convention to amend this clause by striking 
out the word migration, and thereby to make it apply to 
slaves exclusively. . . . The conclusion, to my mind, is 
therefore irresistible, that there are two separate and dis- 
tinct classes of persons intended to be provided for by this 
clause. Although they are both subjects of commerce, 
the latter class only is the subject of trade and importation. 
The slaves are not immigrants. . . . Having thus shown 
there are two distinct classes included in, and provided by, 
the clause of the constitution referred to, the question 
arises, how far the persons of the first class are protected by ' 
the constitution and laws of the United States from the ~ 
operation of the statute of New York now under considera- 
tion? The power was conferred on Congress to prohibit 
migration or importation of such persons into all the new 
States, from and after the time of their admission into the 
Union, because the exemption from the prohibition of Con- 
gress was confined exclusively to the States then existing, 
and left the power to operate upon all the new States ad- 
mitted into the Union prior to 1808. Four new States hav- 
ing been thus admitted within that time, it follows, beyond 
controversy, the power of Congress over the whole subject 
of migration and importation was complete throughout the 
United States after 1808. 

''The power to prohibit the admission of 'all such per- 
sons,' includes, necessarily, the power to admit them on 
such conditions as Congress may think proper to impose; 
and, therefore, as a condition, Congress has the unlimited 
power of taxing them. If this reasoning be correct, the 
whole power over the subject belongs exclusively to Con- 
gress, and connects itself indissolubly with the power to 
regulate commerce with foreign nations. . . . The great 
question here is. Where does the power of the United States 
over this subject end, and where does the State power 
begin? This is, perhaps, one of the most perplexing ques- 
tions ever submitted to the consideration of this court." 


Justice Wayne concurred with Justice McKinley in his 
interpretation of the ninth section of the first article of 
the constitution. He stated that it ''includes within it the 
migration of other persons, as well as the importation of 
slaves, and in terms recognizes that other persons as well 
as slaves may be the subjects of importation and com- 
merce." He doubtless had in view the transportation of 
convicts and paupers to the United States at the expense 
of European governments. Justice Catron also concurred 
in the opinion delivered by Justice McKinley and adopted 
it as forming part of his own. 

Chief Justice Taney could not, however, assent to the 
opinion expressed by Justice McKinley, and Justices 
Daniel, Nelson and Woodbury concurred with him in dis- 
senting. The Chief Justice said : 

'Tf the word can be applied to voluntary immigrants, 
the construction put upon it by those who opposed the 
constitution is certainly the just one; for it is difficult to 
imagine why a power should be so explicitly and carefully 
conferred on Congress to prohibit immigration, unless the 
majority of the States desired to put an end to it, and to 
prevent any particular State from contravening this policy. 
But it is admitted on all hands, that it was then the policy 
of all States to encourage immigration. ... It is only upon 
the ground that they considered it an evil, and desired to 
prevent it, that this word can be construed to mean free- 
dom, and to class them in the same provision and in the 
same words, with the importation of slaves. The limita- 
tion of the prohibition also shows that it does not apply 
to voluntary immigrants. Congress could not prohibit the 
migration and importation of such persons during the time 
specified 'in such States as might think proper to admit 
them.' This provision clearly implies that there was a 
well known difference of policy among the States upon the 
subject to which this article relates. Now, in regard to 
voluntary immigrants, all the States, without exception, 
not only admitted them, but encouraged them to come; and 
the words 'in such States as may think proper to admit 


them/ would have been useless, and out of place, if applied 
to voluntary immigrants. But in relation to slaves it was 
known to be otherwise. . . . The qualification of the power 
of prohibition, therefore, by the words above mentioned, 
was entirely appropriate to the importation of slaves, but 
inappropriate and useless in relation to freedom. . . . The 
whole context of the sentence, and its provisions and limita- 
tions, and the construction given to it by those who assisted 
in framing the clause in question, show that it was intended 
to embrace those persons only who were brought in as 

Justice Woodbury, in noticing this section, in delivering 
his opinion in the same cases, said: 

'This they consider as a grant of power to Congress to 
prohibit the immigration from abroad of all persons, bond 
or free, after 1808, and to tax their importation at once and 
forever, not exceeding ten dollars per head. (9 Wheaton, 
230; Justice Johnson: 15 Peters, 514). . . . But it deserves 
special notice, that this ninth section is one entirely of 
limitation of power rather than a grant of it; and th 
power of prohibition being nowhere else in the constitutio 
expressly granted to Congress, the section seems intro- 
duced rather to prevent it from being implied, except as 
to slaves, after 1808, than to confer it in all cases. (1 
Brockenbrough, 434). If to be implied elsewhere, it is 
from the grant to regulate commerce, and by the idea 
that slaves are subjects of commerce, as they often are. 
Hence it can go no further than imply it as to them, and 
not as to free passengers. Or if to 'regulate commerce' 
extends also to the regulation of mere navigation, an 
hence to the business of carrying passengers, in which it 
may be employed, it is confined to a forfeiture of the vessel, 
and does not legitimately involve a prohibition of persons, 
except when articles of commerce, like slaves. (1 Brocken- 
brough, 432). Or finally, however, it is still a power con- 
current in the States, like most taxation, and is well exer- 
cised by them when Congress does not, as here, legislate 
on the matter either of prohibition or of taxation of pas- 


sengers. It is hence, that if this 9th section was a grant 
to prevent the migration or importation of other persons 
than slaves, it is not an exclusive one, any more than that 
to regulate commerce, to which it refers: nor has it even 
here been exercised so as to conflict with State Laws or 
with the statute of Massachusetts, now under considera- 
tion. This clause itself recognizes an exclusive power of 
prohibition in the States, until 1808. And a concurrent and 
subordinate power on this by the States, after that, is 
nowhere expressly forbidden in the constitution, nor is it 
denied by any reason or necessity for such exclusiveness. 
The States can often use it more wisely than Congress, 
in respect to their own interests and policy. . . . The word 
'migration' was probably added to 'importation,' to cover 
slaves when regarded as persons rather than property, as 
they are for some purposes. Or if to cover others, such as 
convicts and redemptioners, it was those only who came 
here against their will or in a quasi servitude." 

Justice Daniel expressed himself as follows: 'This ninth 
section of the first article of the constitution has been in- 
voked in support of the power claimed for the Federal 
Government. . . . The assertion for a general necessity for 
permission to the States from the General Government, 
either to expel from their confines those who are mis-^ 
chievous or dangerous, or to admit to hospitality and settle- 
ment whomsoever they may deem it advantageous to re- 
ceive, carries with it either a denial to the former, as perfect 
original sovereignties, of the right of self-preservation, or 
presumes a concession to the latter, the creature of the 
States, wholly incompatible with its exercise. This author- 
ity over alien friends belongs not, then, to the General 
Government, by any express delegation of power, nor by 
necessary or improper implication from express grants." 

From a review of the opinions given, the weight of 
authority seems to be that the section of the constitution 
in question was an exception to the power of Congress to 
regulate commerce, so that if it had not been introduced, 
the power to prohibit the importation would have resulted 



from the general grant to regulate commerced For it is 
a rule of interpretation acknowledged by all, that the ex- 
ception of a particular thing from general words proves 
that, in the opinion of the lawgiver, the thing excepted 
would be within the general clause, had the exception not 
been made, and there seems to be no reason why this 
general rule should not be as applicable to the constitution 
as to other instruments.^ The section, according to this 
construction, not only considers the right of controlling 
personal ingress or migration, as implied in the powers 
previously vested in Congress over commerce, but acknowl- 
edges it as a subject of revenue.^ Congress having the 
exclusive power to regulate commerce, and the latter, under 
the interpretation of the ninth section including the im- 
migration of persons as well as the importation of mer- 
chandise, the conclusion was beginning to be irresistible 
by 1850 that Congress had the sole power over the immi- 
gration of foreigners as well as the importation of goods, 
and that the States could not, therefore, tax immigrants for 
the purpose of paying expenses incident to the execution 
of their police laws. 

Though a great difference of opinion is manifested in the 
written opinions of the Judges of the Supreme Court, as to 
the constitutionality of the passenger laws of New York 
and Massachusetts, which imposed a tax, and which were 
under consideration in the cases of Smith v. 'Turner and 
Norris v. Boston, no such differences existed among them as 
to the power relating to internal police being reserved to 
the States, to be exercised by them even to the entire ex- 
clusion of certain classes of persons. This principle was 
fully established in the case of the City of New York v. 
Milne, which came before the United States Supreme 
Court, on a certificate of division in opinion of the Judges 
of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern 
District of New York. The facts of the case were these: 
By one of the provisions of an act passed by the New York 

' 15 Poters' Rop., 514. • 12 Whcaton, 450. 

M2 Wheaton Rep., 440. "11 PctciV Rep., 102 (January, 1837). 


' Legislature in 1824, the master of every vessel arriving in 
New York was required under certain penalties, within 
twenty-four hours after his arrival, to make report of the 
names, ages and last legal settlement of every person on 
board his vessel, etc. New York City brought an action 
of debt under this law against the master of the ship 
"Emily'^ for the recovery of certain penalties imposed by 
the act. The defendant demurred and alleged that the act 
assumed to regulate trade and commerce, and was therefore 
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided otherwise, 
however, and pronounced the act to be constitutional. In 

I delivering the opinion of the court, Justice Barbour said: 
"We are of opinion that the act is not a regulation of 
commerce but of police; and that being thus considered, it 
was passed in the exercise of a power which rightfully be- 
longed to the States. . . . The power of New York to pass 
this law having undeniably existed at the formation of the 
constitution, the simple inquiry is, whether by that instru- 
ment it was taken from the States, and granted, to Con- 
gress ; for if it were not, it yet remains with them. If, 
. as we think, it be a regulation, not of commerce, but 
police; then it is not taken from the States. To decide 
this, let us examine its purpose, the end to be attained, 
and the means of its attainment. 

i "The object of the legislature was, to prevent New York 
from being burdened by an influx of persons brought 
thither in ships, either from foreign countries, or from any 

i other of the States, and for that purpose a report was re- 
quired of the names, places of birth, etc., of all passengers, 

' that the necessary steps might be taken by the city authori- 
ties to prevent them from becoming chargeable as paupers. 
. . . Now we hold that both the end and the means here 
used, are within the competency of the States, since a por- 
tion of their powers were surrendered to the Federal Gov- 
ernment. Let us see what powers are left with the States. 
. . . This court, in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden,^^ in speak- 

j ing of the inspection laws of the State, says: 'They form a 

"9 Wheat., 203 (1824). 



portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces 
everything within the territory of a State, not surrendered 
to the General Government, all which can be most advan- 
tageously exercised by the States themselves.' ... , 

''Now, if the act in question be tried by reference to the ; 
delineation of power laid down in the preceding quota- j 
tion, it seems to us that we are necessarily brought to the 
conclusion, that it falls within its limits. . . . We choose | 
rather to plant ourselves on what we consider impregnable I 
positions. They are these : That a State has the same un- \ 
deniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and 
things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, 
where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained 
by the constitution of the United States; that, by virtue 
of this, it is not only the right but the bounden and solemn 
duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and pros- 
perity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, 
by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to 
be conducive to these ends; where the power over the 
particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not sur- 
rendered or restrained, in the manner just stated; that all 
those powers which may be called internal police, are not 
thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in 
relation to these the authority of a State is complete, un- 
qualified, and exclusive. We are aware, that it is at all 
times difficult to define any subject with proper precision 
and accuracy; if this be so in general, it is emphatically so 
in relation to a subject so diversified and multifarious as the 
one which we are now considering. ... 

''Now in relation to the section in the act immediately 
before us, that is obviously passed with a view to prevent 
her citizens from being oppressed by the support of multi- 
tudes of poor persons, who come from foreign countries 
without possessing the means of supporting themselves. 
There can be no mode in which the power to regulate 
internal police could be more appropriately exercised. New 
York, from her particular situation, is, perhaps more than 
any other city in the Union, exposed to the evil of thou- 


I sands of foreign immigrants arriving there, and the conse- 
quent danger of her citizens being subjected to heavy charge 
in the maintenance of those who are poor. It is the duty 
of the State to protect its citizens from this evil; they 
have endeavored to do so, by passing, amongst other things, 
the section of the law in question. We should, upon 
principle, say that it had a right to do so. . . . 

''We think it as competent and as necessary for a State 
to provide precautionary measures against the moral pesti- 
lence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts, as it 
is to guard against the physical pestilence which may arise 
from unsound and infectious articles imported, or from a 
ship, the crew of which may be laboring under an infec- 
tious disease.'^ 

In the same case Justice Thompson said: ''Can anything 
fall more directly within the police power and internal 
regulation of a State, than that which concerns the care 
and management of paupers or convicts or any other class 
or description of persons that may be thrown into the 
country, and likely to endanger its safety, or become charge- 
able for their maintenance? It is not intended by this 
remark to cast any reproach upon foreigners who may ar- 
rive in this country. But if all power to guard against 
these mischiefs is taken away, the safety and welfare of 
the community may be very much endangered." 

In the case of Groves et al v. Slaughter,^^ Chief Justice 
Taney, in noticing the question of constitutional law that 
had been brought into discussion, viz., whether the grant 
of power to the General Government to regulate commerce 
does not carry with it an implied prohibition to the States 
to make any regulations upon the subject, even though 
they should be altogether consistent with those made by 
Congress, raised the query whether such State legislation 
would not be valid until Congress should otherwise direct. 
He said: "The question upon which different opinions have 
been entertained, is this: Would a regulation of commerce, 
by a State, be valid until Congress should otherwise direct, 

" 15 Peters' Rep., 509. 



provided such regulation was consistent with the regula- 
tions of Congress, and did not in any manner conflict with 
them? No case has yet arisen which made it necessary, 
in the judgment of the court, to decide the question. It 
was treated as an open one, in the case of The City of New 
York V. Milne,^^ decided at January term, 1837, as will 
appear by the opinions then delivered; and since that 
time the point has never, in any form, come before the 

Justice Baldwin, in the same case, (Groves et al v. 
Slaughter, 15 Peters' Rep. 509) however, emphatically 
recognized the exclusive power of Congress over commerce, 
yet at the same time conceded the internal police power 
to belong exclusively to the States. He stated: ^That the 
power of Congress 'to regulate commerce among the several 
States' is exclusive of any interference by the States, has 
been, in my opinion, conclusively settled by the solemn 
opinions of this court, in Gibbons v. Ogden,^^ and in Brown 
V. Maryland. . . . Cases may, indeed, arise wherein 
there may be found the diflaculty in discriminating be- 
tween regulations of 'commerce among the several States,' 
and the regulations of 'the internal police of a State,' but 
the subject-matter of such regulations, of either descrip- 
tion, will lead to the true line which separates them, when" 
they are examined with a disposition to avoid a collision 
between the powers granted to the Federal Government, 
by the people of the several States, and those which they 
have reserved exclusively to themselves." 

In the case of Prigg v. the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- 
vania,^^ Justice Story, in delivering the opinion of the 
Court, used the following language in relation to the police 
power belonging to the States: "The police power extends 
over all subjects within the territorial limits of the States, 
and has never been conceded to the United States. . . . 
We entertain no doubts whatsoever, that the States, in 
virtue of their general police power, possess full jurisdic- 

"11 Peters, 102. 
" 12 Wheat, 438-446. 

"9 Wheat., 186-192. 
" 16 Peters' Rep., 625. 


tion to arrest and restrain runaway slaves and remove them 
from their borders, and otherwise to secure themselves 
.against their depredations and evil example, as certainly 
they may do in cases of idlers, vagabonds, and paupers." 

In the License cases/"^ Chief Justice Taney still insisted 
that there was no absolute prohibition to the exercise of 
the power over commerce by the States, in which opinion 
Justice Woodbury concurred. However, Justice McLean 
did not agree with them as to the power of the States 
over commerce but he distinctly recognized the internal 
police power of the States. He stated: ''In all matters 
of government, and especially of police, a wide discretion 
ds necessary. It is not susceptible of an exact limitation, 
but must be exercised under the changing exigencies of 
society. . . . Under the pretense of a police regulation, a 
State cannot counteract the commercial power of Congress. 
. . . The police power of a State and the foreign com- 
mercial power of Congress must stand together. Neither 
of them can be so exercised as materially to affect the 
other. The sources and objects of these powers are ex- 
clusive, distinct and independent, and are essential to both 

Justice Grier, in the same case said: ''Without attempt- 
ing to define what are the peculiar subjects or limits of the 
police power, it may safely be affirmed that every law for 
the restraint and punishment of crime, for the preserva- 
tion of the public peace, health, and morals, must come 
within this category. ... It is for this reason that quaran- 
tine laws, which protect the public health, compel mere 
commercial regulations to submit to their control. They 
restrain the liberty of the passengers, they operate on the 
ship which is the instrument of commerce, and its officers 
and crew, the agents of navigation. . . . Paupers and con- 
victs are refused admission into the country. All these 
things are done, not from any power which the States as- 
sume to regulate commerce or to interfere with the regula- 
tions of Congress, but because police laws for the preserva- 

"5 Howard, 578. 



tion of health, prevention of crime, and protection of thel 
public welfare, must of necessity have full and free opera-' 
tion, according to the exigency which requires their inter-! 

The immediate question at issue in the case of Smith v. 
Turner and Norris v. City of Boston^ ^ was not, however,' 
made dependent upon the construction of the ninth section 
of the first article of the constitution, but was, whether thai 
enactment of certain laws of New York and Massachusetts, 
imposing a tax upon passengers, either foreigners or citizens 
coming into the ports in those States, was in conflict with 
the power of Congress over commerce. The case of Smith* 
V. Turner arose under the health laws of New York. By 
the seventh section of the act of that State under con- 
sideration, it was provided, ''that the health commissioner 
shall demand, and be entitled to receive, etc., from the 
master of every vessel from a foreign port, for himself 
and each cabin passenger, etc., one dollar, and the master 
of each coasting vessel from the States of New Jersey, Con- 
necticut, and Rhode Island, shall not pay for more than 
one voyage in each month." The eighth section pro- 
vided that the moneys so received should be denominated 
''hospital moneys"; and the ninth gave "each master pay- 
ing hospital moneys, a right to demand and recover from 
each person the sum paid on his account." The tenth 
provided for a forfeiture of $100 in case of the master's 
failure to pay within a certain time; and the eleventh re- 
quired the commissioners of health to account to the Comp- 
troller of the State, and in case the sum received in any 
one year exceeded the expenses of their trust, they were to 
pay the surplus to the Treasurer of the Society for the 
Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents. 

The plaintiff in error was master of the British ship, 
Henry Bliss, and landed at New York in June, 1841, two 
hundred and ninety steerage passengers, and, refusing to 
pay the required tax, the defendant in error brought an 
action against him therefor, whereupon he filed a demurrer, 

"7 Howard 283 (1848). 


on the ground that the act was a regulation of commerce, 
iand in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. 
The Supreme Court of the State overruled the demurrer, 
land the Court of Errors afiirmed the judgment, and there- 
upon it was taken before the Supreme Court of the United 
States. Justice McLean, in delivering the opinion of the 
Court, concurred in by Justices Catron, Grier, McKinley, 
and Wayne, and dissented to by Chief Justice Taney, and 
Justices Nelson, Daniel, and Woodbury, considered the case 
iunder two general heads: ^'1. Is the power of Congress to 
regulate commerce an exclusive power?" and *'2. Is the 
statute of New York a regulation of commerce?" Both of 
these propositions were answered in the affirmative by the 

The case of Norris v. the City of Boston brought before 
the court the judgment of the Supreme Court of Massa- 
chusetts, which was in favor of the constitutionality of ''an 
jact relating to alien passengers," passed April 20, 1837. 
I This act contained provisions which, according to the view 
I taken in the case of Smith v. Turner, were considered regu- 
lations of commerce, and not within the constitutional 
power of the State to enact. These provisions were as fol- 
lows: Section 1 provided for an examination of all alien 
passengers on board by an official designated by the city 
government of Boston. Section 2 stated ^'If, on such ex- 
amination, there shall be found among said passengers any 
lunatic, idiot, maimed, aged or infirmed person, incompe- 
tent in the opinion of the officer so examining, to maintain 
[themselves, or who have been paupers in any country, no 
such alien passenger shall be permitted to land, until the 
master, owner, consignee or agent of such vessel, shall have 
I given to such city or town a bond in the sum of one thou- 
sand dollars, with a good and sufficient security, that no 
such lunatic, or indigent passenger shall become a city, 
town, or State charge, within ten years from the date of 
the said bond." Section 3 was to the effect that ''no alien 
passenger, other than those spoken of in the preceding 
section, shall be permitted to land until the master, owner, 



consignee, or agent of such vessel, shall pay to the regu- 1 
larly appointed boarding officer the sum of two dollars for |: 
each passenger so landing; and the money so collected shallij' 
be paid into the treasury of the city or town, to be ap- i 
propriated as the city or town may direct for the support | 
of foreign paupers." | 

In his defense of the Massachusetts law, the counsel | 
representing the City of Boston stated : "The law of Massa- \ 
chusetts was not made for the purpose of regulating foreign | 
commerce, although it affects it so far as is necessary in 
providing for the regulation of a class of persons connected i 
with it, but it is in fact an act modifying the pauper laws 
of the State, and designed to mitigate, in some degree, 
the burdens attempted to be thrown upon us in subjecting : 
us to support the alien poor. ... I 

''The act is in every feature manifestly a pauper law, 
growing out of a pressing emergency. . . . The State has • 
exercised for two hundred years the right to make pauper 
laws. Can she do it now? I contend that this power is 
one of her attributes of sovereignty, which she has never . 
surrendered, and now has the right to enjoy. ... 3 

"The law of Massachusetts has no reference whatever ' 
to foreign commerce, except as the instrument employed to : 
inflict an injury upon the State. It is the avenue through 
which these persons are introduced, and is controlled just 
so far as is necessary to mitigate the evil and make it endur- 
able, but no farther. Can we not do this? ... I have read 
the language of this bench, in which they concede the right 
and declare it to be our duty, to exercise our police power 
by protective and preventive measures. We are warned 
that it is as much our duty to provide against the moral 
pestilence of pauperism as against infection. ... 

''We may protect ourselves, says the court; but when, 
how, where? . . . What can a State do to avert or pre- , 
vent, after the paupers and vagabonds are landed and 
mixed with the population? Such an exercise of the power 
conceded to us would be barren and useless. We must meet 
it on shipboard, as we do disease and dangerous merchan-jii 


dise. There we can put our hands upon the lunatics, idiots, 
aged and infirm paupers, etc. There we can learn what the 
shipowner, the master, and the agents for emigration 
are about. There we can detect their conspiracy with the 
parishes of Europe to transfer their poor and their culprits 
to this country, to poison our morals and increase our 
burdens. There is the place, and the only place, to apply 
the corrective, where the evidence can lead to no mistake. 
If we cannot meet the evil here, and regulate it here, the 
power to expel and the power to prevent are empty and 
! worthless.'^ 

All of the judges delivered written opinions in these 
so-called ^'Passenger Cases."^* In Smith v. Turner Justice 
McLean stated; 'The case of the City of New York v. 
Milne, 11 Pet., 102, is relied on with great confidence as 
sustaining the act in question. As I assented to the points 
ruled in that case, consistency, unless convinced of having 
erred, will compel me to support the law now before us, 
if it be the same in principle. ... In the Milne case a 
duty was not laid upon the vessel or the passengers, but 
a report only was required from the master. Now every 
State has an unquestionable right to require a register of 
the names of the persons who come within it to reside 
temporarily or permanently. It opposed no obstruction to 
commerce, imposed no tax nor delay, but acted upon the 
master, owner or consignee of the vessel, after the termina- 
ls tion of the voyage, and when he was within the territory 
of the State, mingling with its citizens, and subject to its 

"But the health law, as it is called, under consideration, 
is altogether different in its objects and means. It imposes 
a tax or duty on the passengers, officers and sailors, holding 
the master responsible for the amount at the immediate 
termination of the voyage, and necessarily before the pas- 
sengers have set their feet on land. . . . The principle in- 
volved is vital to the commercial power of the Union. . . . 
The police power of the State cannot draw within its 

"7 Howard 283 (1848). 



jurisdiction objects which lie beyond it. In guarding the 
safety, health, and morals of its citizens, a State is re- 
stricted to appropriate and constitutional means. . . . The 
act of New York which imposes a tax on passengers of a 
ship from a foreign port, in the manner provided, is a 
regulation of foreign commerce, which is exclusively vested 
in Congress: and the act is therefore void." 

Justice Grier said: ''It is true, that if a State has an 
absolute and uncontrolled right to exclude, the inference 
that she may prescribe the conditions of entrance, in the 
shape of a license or tax, must necessarily follow. The con- 
clusion can not be evaded if the premises be proved. A 
right to exclude is a power to tax ; and the converse of the 
proposition is also true, that a power to tax is a power to 
exclude; and it follows, as a necessary result, from this 
doctrine, that those States in which are situated the great 
ports or gates of commerce have a right to exclude, if they 
see fit, all immigrants from access to the interior States, 
and to prescribe the conditions on which they shall be al- 
lowed to proceed on their journey. ... If these States 
retain all the rights of sovereignty, as this argument as- i 
sumes, one of the chief objects for which this Union was 
formed has totally failed, and 'we may again witness the 
scene of conflicting commercial regulations and exactions 
which were once so destructive to the harmony of the 
States, and fatal to their commercial interests abroad.' 

"To guard against the recurrence of the evils, the consti- I 
tution has conferred on Congress the power to regulate j 
commerce with foreign nations, and among the States in 
order that, as regards our intercourse with other nations 
and with one another, we might be one people — not a mere f 
confederacy of sovereign States for the purpose of defense | 
or aggression." , 

Inamediately after the decision in the Passenger Cases^ j 
the State of New York modified her statute with a view, i 
no doubt, to avoid the constitutional objection. At the ; 
time the constitutionality of the law as modified, was again 
challenged before the Supreme Court of the United States, 


in Henderson et al v. Mayor of New York et al,-^ its pro- 
visions were as follows: The master or owner of every 
vessel landing passengers from a foreign port was bound to 
make a report similar to the one recited in the statute held 
to be valid in the case of New York v. Milne ; and on this 
report the Mayor was to indorse a demand upon the master 
or owner that he give a bond for every passenger landed 
in the city, in the penal sum of $300, conditioned to in- 
demnify the commissioners of immigration, and every 
county, city, and town in the State, against any expense 
for the relief or support of the person named in the bond 
for four years thereafter; but the owner or consignee may 
commute for such bond, and be released from giving it, by 
paying, within twenty-four hours after the landing of the 
passengers, the sum of one dollar and fifty cents for each one 
of them. If neither the bond be given nor the sum pai J 
within the twenty-four hours, a penalty of $500 for each 
pauper was incurred, which was made a lien on the vessel, 
collectible by attachment at the suit of the Commissioner 
of Emigration. 

It was argued that the change in the statute took it out 
of the principle of the case of Smith v. Turner, the Pas- 
senger Case of New York. It was argued that the statute 
in that case was a direct tax on the passenger, while in 
the present case the requirement of a bond was but a 
suitable regulation under the power of the State to pro- 
tect its cities and towns from the expense of supporting 
persons who are paupers or diseased, or helpless women 
and children, coming from foreign countries. 

Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court, in 
which he said: 'Tn whatever language a statute may be 
framed, its purpose must be determined by its natural and 
reasonable effect; and if it is apparent that the object 
of this statute, as judged by that criterion, is to compel 
the owners of the vessels to pay a sum of money for every 
passenger brought by them from a foreign shore, and 
landed at the port of New York, it is as much a tax on 

"92 U. S. 259 (1875). 



passengers if collected from them, or a tax on the vessel or 
owners as was the statute held void in the Passenger Cases. 
To require a heavy and almost impossible condition to the 
exercise of this right with the alternative of payment of a 
small sum of money is, in effect, to demand payment of 
that sum. . . . The cost of preparing the bond and ap- 
proving sureties, with the troubles incident to it in each 
case, is greater than the sum required to be paid as com- 
mutation. It is inevitable, under such a law, that the 
money would be paid for each passenger, or the statute 
resisted or evaded. It is a law in its purpose and effect 
imposing a tax on the owner of the vessel for the privilege 
of landing in New York passengers transported from- 
foreign countries. ... 

'Tt is equally clear that the matter of these statutes 
may be, and ought to be, the subject of a uniform system 
or plan. The laws which govern the right to land pas- 
sengers in the United States from other countries ought 
to be the same in New York, Boston, New Orleans, and San 
Francisco. ... 

"We are of opinion that this whole subject has been 
confided to Congress by the constitution; that Congress 
can more appropriately and with more acceptance exercise 
it than any other body known to our law. State or national; 
that by providing a system of laws in these matters, applic- 
able to all ports and to all vessels, a serious question, which 
has long been a matter of contest and complaint, may 
be effectually and satisfactorily settled." 

Despite this decision declaring the commutation system 
unconstitutional. New York made another attempt in 1881 
to find a constitutional method of collecting ''head money" 
by passing a law which provided for the collection of one 
dollar for inspection purposes. This act was also declared 
unconstitutional in People v. Compagnie Generale Trans- 

Mr. Justice Miller again delivered the opinion of the 
court, in which he stated: ''It is apparent that the object 

" 107 U. S. 59, decided February 5, 1883. 


of these New York enactments goes far beyond any correct 
view of the purpose of an inspection law. The commis- 
sioners are 'To inspect all persons arriving from any foreign 
country, to ascertain who among them are habitual crim- 
inals, or pauper lunatics, idiots or imbeciles or orphan per- 
sons, without means or capacity to support themselves and 
subject to become a public charge.' It may safely be said 
that these are matters incapable of being satisfactorily 
ascertained by inspection. ... In fact, these statutes 
differ from those heretofore held void, only in calling them 
in their caption 'inspection laws,' and in providing for pay- 
ment of any surplus, after the support of paupers, criminals 
and diseased persons, into the Treasury of the United 
States; a surplus which it is safe to say will never exist. 
A State cannot make a law designed to raise money to 
support paupers, to detect or prevent crime, to guard 
against disease, and to cure the sick, an inspection law, 
within the constitutional meaning of that word,-- by call- 
ing it so in the title. Since the decision of this case in 
the circuit court, Congress has undertaken to do what this 
court has repeatedly said it alone had the power to do. . . . 
This legislation covers the same ground as the New York 
statute, and they cannot co-exist." 

These two decisions were the death blow to all future 
efforts of the States to regulate immigration and to ex- 
clude certain undesirable classes. Since the Supreme Court 
had held ''that Congress can more appropriately and with 
more acceptance exercise it than any other body known to 
our law, State or national," the Federal Government soon 
embarked upon a national policy of regulating immigration, 
which has resulted in restriction after restriction, until 
at the present time we have what may be called "a drastic 
immigration law." This transition from State to national 
control of immigration was inevitable, for the problem had 
become a national one, requiring uniform legislation. State 
legislation had been sufficient when the tide of immigra- 
tion was not so strong. But the time had now come when 

"Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 ofthe Constitution of the United States. 



the States could no longer handle the situation under their 
police powers. With the constitutional issue over authority 
settled for all time by these decisions of the Supreme Court, 
the Federal Government was in a position to deal with the 
problem as it saw fit. It is only natural that its first 
legislation should have had as its purpose the exclusion of 
certain undesirable classes. It was also inevitable that 
some time would be required before satisfactory legislation 
could be passed. The problem was also complicated by the 
coming of the ^'new" immigration, which became a problem 
only after the period of Federal legislation had begun. 
However, the Federal Government took steps toward legis- 
lation following the above decisions of the Supreme Court. 
Into a study of this Federal legislation, we shall enter in 
the following chapters. 


Federal Immigration Legislation to 1914 ^ 

Early Acts of Congress— Act of 1875— Act of 1882— Acts of 1885, 1887, 1888 
—Ford Committee Report— Act of 1891— Acts of 1893— Act of 1894— Rec- 
ommendations of President Roosevelt in 1901 — Act of 1903 — Minor Acts — 
Act of 1907— Act of 1910— Act of 1913— Conclusions. 

On March 2, 1819, Congress passed what can be desig- 
nated as the first federal legislation on the subject of immi- 
gration. The provision of permanent benefit and hence 
of importance in this act was the stipulation that at the 
port of landing a full and complete report or manifest was 
to be made by the ship's officer to the customs authorities, 
which was to state the number of passengers carried, to- 
gether with the name, sex, age, and occupation of each. 
This resulted in official statistics being collected for the 
first time for the year ending September 30, 1820. Since 
then we have a continuous record of all arrivals, increasing 
in detail with subsequent legal requirements. Another 
provision undertook to lessen the evils resulting from the 
intolerable overcrowding on ships bringing immigrants into 
the United States. It limited the number of passengers 
which might be carried on any ship to two to every five 
tons of the ship's weight. Furthermore, each ship or vessel 
leaving an American port was to have on board for each 
passenger carried sixty gallons of water, one gallon of 
vinegar, one hundred pounds of salted provisions, and one 
hundred pounds of wholesome ship bread. 'Tt is very 

* Most standard books on the subject of immigration deal at length with 
the period of Federal legislation thru the Act of 1917. Hence only investi- 
gations, reports and laws are dealt with in Chapters IV and V. Our pur- 
pose is merely to trace the expansion of these laws in order to better 
understand the present situation, which is but a part of the continuous 
development of restrictions against immigration. 




doubtful how much good either of these provisions ever 
did to the immigrants. The clause in regard to over- 
crowding, based as it was merely on the ship's total weight, 
was wholly inadequate to prevent extreme overcrowding 
in such parts of the vessel as might be assigned to pas- 
sengers. And as far as the provision regarding supplies 
is concerned, it could have been of no help to the immi- 
grants, as it applied only to ships leaving an American 

Despite the horrible conditions existing on the ships, no 
further legislation was passed until 1847, when, on Febru- 
ary 22, Congress passed a law superseding that of 1819, 
its purpose being to remedy the evils of overcrowding.^ 
The law was very unsatisfactory and was superseded by 
the act of May 17, 1848, which remained in force until 
1855. In the mean time the British Government in 1849 
passed a law which undertook to remedy the same evils. 
However, conditions were but very little improved, so that 
in 1853 a select committee of the Senate was appointed 
to investigate the conditions of steerage immigration and, 
in particular, ''the causes and the extent of the sickness and 
mortality prevailing on board the emigrant ships on the 
voyage to this country," and to determine what legisla- 
tion, if any, was necessary to secure better conditions. The 
committee's report of August 2, 1854 * resulted in the en- 
actment of a law March 3, 1855, which, with slight modifica- 
tions, governed the carriage of immigrants up to 1882. The 
act of 1855 limited the number that could be brought to 
one for every two tons, not including children under one 
year, and counted two children between one and eight years 
of age as one person. It also provided that each passenger 
on the main and poop decks of vessels should have sixteen 
feet of floor space, and on the lower decks eighteen feet. 
Concerning this act the Immigration Commission stated; 
"Theoretically the law of 1855 provided for an increased 

' Fairchild, op. cit., p. 66. 

' Sec Abbott, Immigration, Section I, for a number of original documents 
dealing with steerage conditions 1751-1882. 
* See Senate Committee Report No. 386, 33rd Congress, 1st session. 


air space, better ventilation, and improved accommodations 
in the way of berths, cooking facilities, the serving of food, 
free open deck space, and so forth. Although the evil 
of overcrowding, which had been attended with such dis- 
astrous results in former years, appears to have been espe- 
cially aimed at by the makers of the law, the wording of the 
act was, unfortunately, such that the provisions relating to 
the number of passengers to be carried were inoperative, 
as far as the United States law was concerned, between 
1855 and 1882." ^ 

In 1860 an act was passed amending the steerage law 
which was designed to secure much-needed protection for 
female passengers from immoral conduct on the part of 
members of the crew. A fine of $1,000 was imposed on 
any person employed on any ship of the United States 
who was found guilty of such conduct, and members of 
the crew were forbidden to visit parts of the ship assigned 
to immigrants, except under the direction or with the per- 
mission of the commanding officer. 

Another law, the Act of 1864, deserves mention. It pro- 
vided that the President should appoint a ''Commissioner 
of Immigration"; that immigrants might assign their 
wages for a year or less or encumber their land in order to 
pay the expenses of emigrating; that no immigrant, unless 
he should declare his intention to become a citizen, should 
be liable to military service in the Civil War; that a United 
States Emigrant Office should be established in New York 
City, and the superintendent should make contracts with 
railroads and transportation companies for carrying immi- 
grants to their destination, and should provide them with 
all needed information ; and that the Commissioner should 
furnish an annual report to Congress of the workings of 
his bureau. However, this act was in the nature of a War 
measure, designed to fill the places of the men sent to the 
front, and since the necessity for its continuation ceased 
when the men in the army re-entered peaceful pursuits, it 
was repealed in 1868. 

•Rept. Imm. Com., Steerage Legislation, abs., p. 11. 



The next exercise of the power of Congress over immi- 
gration was not in order to regulate immigration generally, 
but to suppress one specific evil, the coolie trade. The Act 
of February 19, 1862 « and the Act of February 9, 
1869/ which prohibited the building, equipping, loading, 
or preparing any vessel licensed, enrolled, or registered in 
the United States for procuring coolies from any Oriental 
country to be held for service or labor, were not specifically 
directed against the Chinese as such, but against a grade 
of cheap Oriental labor imported largely under a system 
of contract which amounted to a species of slavery. Vessels 
employed in the coolie trade were to be forfeited, and the 
building of vessels to engage in this trade, as well as the 
trade itself, was made a criminal offense. The act did not, 
however, interfere with the voluntary emigration of coolies 
or others if a certificate had been made before the consular 
agent of the United States, at the port of departure, certify- 
ing to the fact of such voluntary emigration. 

However, the period of Federal legislation, which has 
resulted in the growth of a complicated body of federal 
immigration laws, may be said to have really begun with 
the act of March 3, 1875, although it is also sometimes 
dated from the Act of August 3, 1882, since the latter is 
the first inclusive federal immigration law. 

The act of March 3, 1875 ^ prohibited the importation of 
women for purposes of prostitution and alien convicts. The 
immigration of large numbers of Chinese laborers into the 
Pacific Coast States had resulted in a demand for Chinese 
and Japanese prostitutes and certain persons were making 
it a business to import them. Section 1 of the act gave 
the consular officer at the port from which it was proposed 
to convey these women, authority to make inquiry as to 
whether the emigration was free and voluntary or whether 
it was under contract, the women to be used for lewd and 
immoral purposes. If the latter, then the consular official 
could not deliver the required certificate or permit to the 
master of the vessel. Any citizen of the United States or 

• 12 Stat. 340. ' 15 Stat. 269. ' 18 Stat 477. 


other person amenable to the laws of the United States 
who transported subjects of China or Japan to the United 
States without their free consent was subject to fine and 
imprisonment. Section 3 declared the importation of 
women for purposes of prostitution a felony and the con- 
tract was to be declared void. Section 4 declared it to be a 
felony to import any coolie into the United States. Section 
5 declared ''That it shall be unlawful for aliens of the fol- 
lowing classes to immigrate into the United States, namely, 
persons who are undergoing a sentence for conviction in 
their own country of felonious crimes other than political 
or growing out of or the result of such political offenses, 
or whose sentence has been remitted on condition of their 
emigration, and women imported for purposes of prostitu- 
tion." It was necessary to exclude alien convicts because 
the practice was still common on the part of certain coun- 
tries to remit sentences on the condition of emigration. 
The act provided for the search of vessels suspected of con- 
taining persons of the excluded classes which applied to 
immigrants from all countries, whether Oriental or not,^ 
although the facts are that many continued to get into the 
United States. However, this law was a step forward in 
the right direction toward restriction, for it provided for 
the exclusion of at least three obviously undesirable types 
of immigrants, — the coolie, the alien convict and the foreign 

The enormous immigration of 1882, which totalled 
788,992, a point which had never been reached before and 
was not reached again until 1903; the agitation of the 
laboring classes, who were adversely affected by it ; and the 
important decisions of the Supreme Court, previously dis- 
cussed, which declared State restrictions of immigration 
to be illegal regulations of commerce, led to the passage in 
that year of the first general immigration law. Section 1 
of the Act of August 3, 1882 provided that a duty of fifty 
cents was to be levied on each and every passenger not a 
citizen of the United States who came from a foreign port 

"U. S. V. Johnson, 7 Fed. Rep. 453 (1881). "22 Stat. 214. 



to any port within the United States. This duty was to be 
collectible at the port of landing and paid into the United 
States Treasury and to be known as the "immigrant fund." 
There was the provision that "The money thus collected 
shall be used to defray the expense of regulating im- 
migration under this act, and for the care of immigrants 
arriving in the United States, for the relief of such as are in 
distress, and for the general purposes and expenses of carry- 
ing this act into effect, . . . Provided, That no greater sum 
shall be expended for the purposes hereinbefore mentioned, 
at any port, than shall have been collected at such port." 
This was the provision to which Mr. Justice Miller referred 
in People v. Compagnie Generale Trans-Atlantique, 
when, in declaring the inspection law of New York, which 
imposed a head tax, illegal, he said, "the two cannot 

Section 2 provided "That the Secretary of the Treasury 
is hereby charged with the duty of executing the provisions 
of this act and with supervision over the business of im- 
migration into the United States, and for that purpose he 
shall have power to enter into contracts with such State 
commissions, board or officers as may be designated for that 
purpose by the governor of any State to take charge of the 
local affairs of immigration in the ports within the said 
State." The examination of the condition of passengers 
on arrival was made the duty of the State boards or com- 
missions. This section also extended the number of ex- 
cluded classes as follows: "if on such examination there 
shall be found among such passengers any convict, lunatic, 
idiot or any person unable to take care of himself or her- 
self without becoming a public charge, they shall report 
the same in writing to the collector of such port, and such 
persons shall not be permitted to land." Section 3 em- 
powered the Secretary of the Treasury to make proper pro- 
visions to protect immigrants from fraud and loss, and to 
carry out the law. Section 4 stated, "That all foreign con- 
victs except those convicted of political offenses, upon ar- 
rival, shall be sent back to the nations to which they be- 


long and from whence they came." Section 5 provided, 
"That this act shall take effect immediately." 

The important things to note in this act of 1882 are (1) 
the imposition of a federal head tax; (2) the extension of 
the excluded classes to include lunatics, idiots, and per- 
sons likely to become a public charge; (3) the return of 
excluded aliens at the expense of the ship owners; and 
(4) the assignment of the responsibility for the execution 
of the immigration laws to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
although State commissions were to continue to do the 
actual work of examination. In this act Congress put up 
several bars to exclude certain undesirable classes and to 
check immigration. This was indeed a big and important 
step forward, — the first one of any real importance, either 
state or national. 

The next act dealing with the subject of immigration 
was section 22 of the act of July 26, 1884, '^An act to remove 
certain burdens on the American merchant marine, etc.,"^^ 
which was designed to eliminate a discrimination against 
the water transportation in favor of land transportation 
from Canada and Mexico. It provided that until the pro- 
visions of the Act of August 3, 1882, ''shall be made applic- 
able to passengers coming into the United States by land 
carriage, said provisions shall not apply to passengers 
coming by vessels employed exclusively in the trade be- 
tween the ports of the United States and the ports of the 
Dominion of Canada or the ports of Mexico." It was 
obvious that if persons from these countries, who came 
by water, were subject to the same tax and to the same 
examination and restrictions as immigrants from European 
countries, they would when possible, come by means of 
land transportation. ^2 

"23 Stat. 58. 

"For. Rel. 1888, I, 808-9, or Moore's Digest, Vol. IV, p. 163, gives an 
interesting case. Concerning the settlement of a number of Indians in 
British Columbia within the territory of Alaska, the Secretary of the 
Treasury stated that as section 1 of the Act of August 3, 1882 applied only 
to passengers who should "come by steam or sail vessel from a foreign port 
to any port within the United States," and section 22 of the Act of June 26, 
1884, in effect abolished the capitation tax on immigrants from contiguous 
foreign territory, the immigration in question was not unlawful. 



The Act of February 26, 1885 forbade the immigration 
of ahens under contract to labor. By section 1 it was made 
"unlawful for any person, company, partnership, or corpora- 
tion, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transporta- 
tion, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or 
migration of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, 
into the United States, its Territories, or the District ol 
Columbia, under contract or agreement, parol or special, 
express or implied, made previous to the importation or 
migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to 
perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, 
its Territories, or the District of Columbia." 

By section 2 all such contracts or agreements were de- 
clared to be ''utterly void and of no effect." By section 3 
a penalty of $1,000 was imposed on every violation of the 
first section, the fine to be paid by the person, partnership, 
company, or corporation violating the law. 

Section 4 provided that "the master of any vessel who 
shall knowingly bring within the United States on any such 
vessel, and land, or permit to be landed, from any foreign 
port or place, any alien laborer, mechanic, or artisan who, 
previous to embarkation on such vessel, had entered into 
contract or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, 
to perform labor or service in the United States, shall be 
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction there- 
of, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hun- 
dred dollars for each and every such alien laborer, mechanic 
or artisan so brought as aforesaid, and may also be im- 
prisoned for a term not exceeding six months." 

Section 5 provided for the following exception from the 
provisions of the law: "That nothing in this act shall be 
so construed as to prevent any citizen or subject of any 
foreign country temporarily residing in the United States, 
either in private or official capacity, from engaging, under 
contract or otherwise, persons not residents or citizens of 
the United States to act as private secretaries, servants, 
or domestics for such foreigners temporarily residing in the 
United States as aforesaid; nor shall this act be so con- 


strued as to prevent any person, or persons, partnership, 
or corporation from engaging, under contract or agreement, 
skilled workmen in foreign countries to perform labor in the 
United States in or upon any new industry not at present 
^established in the United States: Provided, That skilled 
labor for that purpose cannot be otherwise obtained; nor 
shall the provisions of this act apply to professional actors, 
artists, lecturers, or singers, nor to persons employed strictly 
as personal or domestic servants: Provided, That nothing 
:in this act shall be construed as prohibiting any individ- 
ual from assisting any member of his family or any rela- 
tive or personal friend, to migrate from any foreign coun- 
try to the United States, for the purpose of settlement 

'^'This act of February 26, 1885 is popularly known as the 
"Ahen Contract Labor Law." After the recovery from 
the panic of 1873, there was a marked growth in the ranks 
of organized labor due to the fact that industrial enter- 
prises, especially mining, developed rapidly. Conflicts 
between the employers and the employees were the in- 
evitable result. In order to resist the demands of the latter, 
the employers began to import from Europe large numbers 
of laborers under contract to work for lower wages than the 
labor unions asked and demanded. This resulted in pres- 
sure being put on Congress to pass legislation to prevent 
such importation of unskilled labor under contract which 
was always willing and able to accept lower wages since 
its standard of living was lower than that of American 
labor. Congress heeded the demand when it passed the 
above law, the constitutionality of which was upheld by the 
courts under the commerce clause in the Constitution. 
However, the courts pointed out a weakness to be remedied 
when it was held that an offer to employ followed by the 

"The following cases have dealt with the contract labor provision: U. S. 
V. Craig, 28 Fed. Rep. 795 (1886) ; Re Florio, 43 Fed. Rep. 114 (1890) ; Lees 
V. U. S., 150 U. S. 476 (1893) ; Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 
143 U. S. Reports 457 (1892) ; Botis v. Davies et al., Immigration Inspectors, 
1.73 Fed. Rep. 996 (1909); United States v. International Silver Company, 
2/1 l ed. Rep. 925 (1921). 



immigration of the alien did not violate the provisions of 
the law against contract labor, since the contract had not 
been fully and directly made. Under this interpretation 
employers desiring to import labor soon found the means 
to let it be known that employment was to be had at such 
and such a place, without making a contrac^t, if the un- 
skilled labor desired would emigrate there.Vf/ While it is 
sometimes argued that it would be very difficult for any 
person who had the slightest idea of what he was going to 
do in this country to prove himself outside the letter of the 
law, yet it is not difficult to draw the line between immigra- 
tion which has been assured of employment at certain 
places, especially when the assurance has come from an 
agent who is paid a bonus, and immigration that comes 
without such an artificial inducement.^^ 

By the Act of February 23, 1887, the execution of the 
Act of February 26, 1885 was committed to the Secretary 
of the Treasury, who ''shall establish such regulations 
and rules, and issue from time to time such instructions, not 
inconsistent with the law, as he shall deem best calculated 
for carrying out the provisions of this act/' and it provided 
''that all persons included in the prohibition in this act, 
upon arrival, shall be sent back to the nations to which 
they belong and from whence they came. . . . The expense 
of such return of the aforesaid persons not permitted to 
land shall be borne by the owners of the vessels in which 
they came."^^ 

By the Act of October 19, 1888, the Act of February 23, 
1887 was "so amended as to authorize the Secretary of the 
Treasury, in case he shall be satisfied that an immigrant 
has been allowed to land contrary to the prohibition of the 

" See Extract from "Immigration," Reports of the U. S. Industrial Com- 
mission, XV (1901), pp. 647-48 for a discussion of the difficulties under the 
contract labor legislation. 

" For typical cases under the contract labor law see the Annual Report 
of the Commissioner-General of Immigration for 1908, pp. 130-133. See 
also his report for 1914 for an account of some contract labor cases in 
whif'h lurgc fines were assessed. 

" 24 Stat. 414. 


ilaw, to cause such immigrant within the period of one year 
I after landing or entry, to be taken into custody and re- 
turned to the country from whence he came, at the expense 
of the owner of the importing vessel, or, if he entered from 
I an adjoining country, at the expense of the person pre- 
viously contracting for his services."^''' This provision is 
important in that it again introduced the principle of de- 
portation after landing, a principle to be distinguished from 
exclusion or restriction of immigration. The acts of 1887 
iand 1888 were amendatory to the Alien Contract Labor 
Law. Taken together the wording is strict and very inclu- 
sive. The burden of proof is upon the immigrant. 

It is interesting to note that on May 17, 1889 the Swiss 
minister at Washington brought to the attention of the 
Deparment of State the case of certain citizens of Switzer- 
land whom the authorities at New York had refused to 
permit to land under the laws then existing and had caused 
to be sent back to Europe. ^'The minister stated that by 
the Swiss federal law of March 22, 1888, it was provided 
that emigration agencies should not ship to foreign coun- 
tries any persons who were not allowed to enter there 
by the laws in force in such countries. For such sending 
the law provided appropriate penalties. The minister 
therefore requested to be advised of the exact reasons why 
the persons in question had not been allowed to land. It 
appeared by investigation that two of them were sent back 
because they were unable to take care of themselves, and 
were likely to become a public charge; that another was 
subject to the same objections, besides being a convict, 
who had served a term of imprisonment in Switzerland, 
while three others were returned as paupers."^^ This cor- 
I respondence not only recognized the right of the United 
States to exclude immigrants, but it also indicates that the 
, laws were working to exclude at least some undesirables. 

However, that the enforcement of these laws was not 

"25 Stat. 566. 

"Moore's Digest, Vol. IV, p. 164, or For. Rcl. 1889, 701-2 



what it should have been is evident from the "Report of 
the lord Committee, the Select Committee to Inquire into 
the importation of Contract Laborers, Convicts, Paupers, 
etc. January, 1889."^^ This report stated: ''Owing to 
the large number of immigrants received each day during 
the spring and summer months questions must be asked 
rapidly, and the inspection is necessarily done in a very 
hurried manner, in order that there may be no undue delay 
in landing them. . . . The testimony taken puts it beyond 
doubt that large numbers of persons not lawfully entitled 
to land in the United States are annually received. . . . 
New York State annually expends in taking care of paupers, 
insane persons, etc., $20,000,000, and this condition of 
affairs is largely due to improper immigration. . . . Along 
the border between Canada and the United States no in- 
spection whatever is made of immigrants; and alien 
paupers, insane persons, etc., may land at Quebec and at 
once proceed to this country without any let or hindrance. 
. . . Many persons belonging to the criminal class have 
been sent to the United States by officials of the European 
Governments and they have persisted in this course even 
after having been requested by officials of our government 
to discontinue it. . . . Evasions of the contract labor law 
are much more numerous than convictions. ... In the 
opinion of the committee the non-enforcement of these acts 
is not so much due to a want of diligence on the part of the 
officials having their administration in charge as it is to 
a lack of proper machinery to carry them into effect. The 
committee believe that the enforcement of all acts designed 
to regulate immigration should be intrusted to the Federal 
Government and not to the States. The regulation of im- 
migration is a matter affecting the whole Union, and is pre- 
eminently a proper subject for Federal control. . . 

An increase in immigration after 1886, until in 1891 it 
had reached more than 560,000, together with the ascer- 
tained inefficiency of the laws passed up to that time, led to 
a general codification and strengthening of the various 

""SOth Congross, 2nd Sossion, House Report, No. 3792. 


statutes in the Act of March 3, 1891. This act added to the 
excluded classes paupers, persons suffering from a loath- 
some or dangerous contagious disease, polygamists and per- 
sons whose tickets of passage had been paid for by another 
or who had been assisted by others to come, unless it was 
affirmatively shown on special inquiry that they were not 
otherwise objectionable. Under this act then the number 
of excluded classes had increased to seven, other than 
Chinese laborers. These were all idiots, insane persons, 
paupers or persons likely to become a public charge, persons 
suffering from a loathsome or dangerous contagious disease, 
persons who had been convicted of a felony or other in- 
famous crime or misdemeanor involving moral inturpitude, 
polygamists and assisted immigrants. However, section 1 
stated: "but this section shall not be held to exclude persons 
living in the United States from sending for a relative or 
friend who is not of the excluded classes under such regula- 
tions as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe: Pro- 
vided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to apply 
to or exclude persons convicted of a political offense, not- 
withstanding said political offense may be designated as a 
'felony, crime, infamous crime, or misdemeanor, involving 
moral inturpitude' by the laws of the land whence he came 
or by the court convicting." 

Section 3 deemed it a violation of the Act of February 
26, 1885 ''to assist or encourage the importation or migra- 
tion of any alien by promise of employment through adver- 
tisements printed and published in any foreign country; 
and any alien coming to this country in consequence of such 
an advertisement shall be treated as coming under a con- 
tract as contemplated by such act."-^ 

Section 4 provided that "no steamship or transportation 
company or owner of vessels shall directly, or through 
agents, either by writing, printing, or oral representations, 
solicit, invite, or encourage the immigration of any alien 
into the LTnited States except by ordinary commercial 
letters, circulars, advertisements, or oral representatives, 

"^U. S. V. Baltic Mills Co., 124 Fed. Rep. 38 (1903) upheld this. 



stating the sailings of their vessels and the terms and facili- ■ 
ties of transportation therein." Thus, soliciting of immi-; 
gration was forbidden, a violation of which was subject to 
the same penalties as those imposed by the third section 
of the Act of February 26, 1885. However, despite the law, 
violations continued, the immigrants being well-coached 
and warned on the subject so as to make it difficult to 
obtain the evidence necessary in many cases to justify 

By section 5 the fifth section of the Act of February 26, 
1885 is ''amended by adding to the second proviso in said 
section the words 'nor to ministers of any religious denom- 
ination, nor persons belonging to any recognized profession, 
nor professors for colleges and seminaries,' and by exclud- 
ing from the second proviso of said section the words 'or 
any relative or personal friend.' " 

By section 6, the bringing into or landing in the United 
States, or the aiding in so doing, by vessel or otherwise, 
of any alien not lawfully entitled to enter is made a mis- 
demeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or 
by imprisonment not exceeding a year, or both. 

Section 7 created the office of superintendent of immigra- 
tion in the Treasury Department. 

By section 8, provision is made for the medical inspec- 
tion of alien immigrants by surgeons of the Marine Hos- 
pital Service; and it declared that "all decisions made by 
the inspection officers or their assistants touching the right 
of an alien to land, when adverse to such right, shall be 
final unless appeal be taken to the superintendent of immi- 
gration, whose action shall be subject to review by the 
Secretary of the Treasury.'' This section enlarged the scope 
of the Immigration Bureau's work in that it took away the 
power of inspection from the state boards and commissions, 
and it also took away from the courts the power to revise 
the decision of immigration officers that an immigrant 
should not be permitted to land,^^ but it was held later 
that the courts had the power to pass upon the ques- 

"Ekiu V. United States, 142 U. S. 651 (1892), 


tion whether the petitioner were an alien immigrant or 

By the same section ''the Secretary of the Treasury 
may prescribe rules for inspection along the borders of 
Canada, British Columbia, and Mexico so as not to obstruct 
or unnecessarily delay, impede, or annoy passengers in 
ordinary travel between said countries." In the same sec- 
tion was the provision that any officer or agent or person in 
charge of a vessel, who shall knowingly or negligently land 
or permit to land any alien immigrant at a place or time 
other than that designated by the inspection officers, may 
be punished as for a misdemeanor, as under Section 6. 

By Section 9, local peace officers are permitted to make 
arrests for crimes under the local laws at immigrant sta- 

Section 10 provided that ''all aliens who may unlawfully 
come into the United States shall, if practicable, be im- 
mediately sent back on the vessel by which they were 
brought in," the cost of their return, including their main- 
tenance while on land, to be borne by the owners ; and any 
master, agent, consignee or owner refusing to perform these 
duties is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable with a fine 
of not less than $300 for each and every offense, besides 
refusal of clearance to the vessel while the fine is unpaid. 

Section 11 stated, "That any alien who shall come into 
the United States in violation of law may be returned as 
by law provided, at any time within one year thereafter, at 
the expense of the person or persons, vessel, transportation 
company, or corporation bringing such alien into the United 
States, and if that cannot be done, then at the expense of 
the United States; and any alien who becomes a public 
charge within one year after his arrival in the United States 
from causes existing prior to his landing therein shall be 
deemed to have come in violation of law and shall be re- 
turned as aforesaid." 

By Section 12, all proceedings, criminal or civil, begun 

"Re Simone, 108 Fed. Rep. 942 (1901). Sec Quon Quon Poy v. Johnson, 
infra p. 302, for an important case decided February 21, 1927. Also see 
cases cited in note 14 on p. 140. 



under previous acts, were saved; and by Section 13, the 
United States circuit and district courts *^are hereby in- 
vested with full and concurrent jurisdiction of all causes, 
criminal and civil, arising under any of the provisions of 
this act; and this act shall go into effect on April 1, 1891.^' 

It is obvious from the above provisions that this was 
the most comprehensive law ever passed up to that time. 
The important provisions were, (1) the extension of the 
excluded classes; (2) the prohibition of encouragement of 
immigration by advertising or solicitation; (3) the aboli- 
tion of the exception which had almost destroyed the former ji 
law, which permitted persons here to assist "any relative- 
or personal friend" to enter the United States regardless of- 
the alien contract labor law; (4) the requirement of mani- 
fests; (5) the complete assumption of the work of inspec- I 
tion by the Federal Government; (6) the extension of the i 
principle of deportation to public charges. Here were im- 
portant additional bars to immigration. By this act the 1} 
wall was built considerably higher to check the ever-swell- \ 
ing tide of immigration, which since 1880 had begun to flow \ 
from a new source, — viz., from southern and eastern Europe. | 

By the Act of February 15, 1893,-^ which granted ad- 
ditional quarantine powers and imposed additional duties 
upon the Marine Hospital Service, it was provided in Sec- 
tion 7, "That whenever it shall be shown to the satisfac- ' 
tion of the President that by reason of the existence of : 
cholera or other infectious or contagious diseases in a 
foreign country there is serious danger of the introduction , 
of the same into the United States, and that notwithstand- : 
ing the quarantine defense this danger is so increased by 
the introduction of persons or property from such country 
that a suspension of the right to introduce the same is 
demanded in the interests of the public health, the Presi- 
dent shall have the power to prohibit, in whole or in part, ! 
the introduction of persons and property from such coun- ; 
tries or places as he shall designate and for such period of j 
time as he may deem necessary." 

"27 Stat. 449. ^52. 


The Act of March 3, 1893 was merely an administrr.tive 
measure covering the inspection and deportation of aliens, 
made necessary by the extensions of jurisdiction and the 
list of excluded classes in the Act of 1891. It did not, how- 
ever, add to the excluded classes. 

By Section 1 the masters of vessels having on board alien 
immigrants are required to deliver on arrival to the in- 
spector of immigration ''lists or manifests made at the time 
and place of embarkation of such alien immigrants on 
board such steamer or vessel, which shall, in answer to 
questions at the top of said lists, state as to each immigrant 
the full name, age, and sex, whether married or single; the 
calling or occupation; whether able to read or write; the 
nationality; the last residence; the seaport for landing in 
the United States; the final destination, if any, beyond 
the seaport of landing; whether having a ticket through to 
such final destination; whether the immigrant has paid 
his own passage or whether it has been paid by other 
persons or by any corporation, society, municipality, or 
government; whether in possession of money, and if so, 
whether upwards of thirty dollars and how much if thirty 
dollars or less; whether going to join a relative, and if so, 
what relative and his name and address; whether ever be- 
fore in the United States, and if so, when and where; 
whether ever in prison or almshouse or supported by char- 
ity; whether a polygamist; whether under contract, ex- 
press or implied, to perform labor in the United States; 
and what is the immigrant's condition of health mentally 
and physically, and whether deformed or crippled, and if 
so, from what cause." It is obvious that this greatly en- 
larged the detailed information to be included in the 

By Section 2, no one list or manifest shall group more 
than thirty names; each immigrant or head of family must 
be ticketed for identification; and each list or manifest 
must be verified in a prescribed manner, the master of the 
vessel having to certify that he and the ship's surgeon have 

»*27 Stat. 569. 


made an examination of all the immigrants before sail- 
ing, and believe none of them to belong to the excluded 

Section 3 requires each list or manifest to be certified 
in like manner, under oath or affirmation, before the de- 
parture of the vessel, by the vessel's surgeon, or, if none, 
by some competent surgeon employed by the owners of the 
vessel. Section 4 imposes on the master of the vessel a 
fine of ten dollars for each immigrant qualified to enter 
the United States who is not duly listed, or manifested, be- 
sides excluding such immigrants and requiring them to be 
''returned like other excluded persons." 

By Section 5 the inspector is required to ''detain for 
a special inquiry," under Section 1 of the Act of March 
3, 1891, "every person who may not appear to him to be 
clearly and beyond doubt entitled to admission." Special 
inquiries are conducted by not less than four inspectors, 
the concurrence of at least three of whom is necessary to 
a favorable decision; and such a decision may be appealed 
by any dissenting inspector to the superintendent of im- 
migration, whose action is subject to review by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury. 

Section 6 relates to medical examinations and by Section 
7 no bond or guaranty that an alien immigrant shall not 
become a public charge can be received except under specific 
authority of the superintendent of immigration, with the 
written approval of the Secretary of the Treasury. This 
provision was to discourage the giving of bonds, as these 
were found to be practically useless, owing to the expense, 
delay, and difficulty involved in attempting to bring suit 
upon them. 

Section 8 requires all steamship or transportation com- 
panies and other owners of vessels, regularly engaged in 
transporting alien immigrants to the United States to keep 
conspicuously exposed to view in the office of each of their 
agents in foreign countries authorized to sell emigrant tick- 
ets, a copy of the laws of the United States relative to immi- 
gration, printed in large letters in the language of the coun- 


try where the copy of the law is to be exposed to view and 
their agents are required to call the attention thereto of per- 
sons contemplating emigration before selling tickets to them. 

Section 9 provided for the sale of certain privileges at 
Ellis Island and Section 10 provided that the act shall not 
apply to Chinese persons, and that the act should go into 
effect sixty days after its passage. 

The sundry civil appropriations act of August 18, 1894 
had several provisions relative to immigration as follows: 
^'In every case where an alien is excluded from admission 
into the United States under any law or treaty now exist- 
ing or hereafter made, the decision of the appropriate 
immigration or custom's officers, if adverse to the admis- 
sion of such alien, shall be final, unless reversed on appeal 
to the Secretary of the Treasury." 'The head money 
from alien passengers on and after the first day of October 
next, collected under the Act of August 3, 1882, to regulate 
immigration shall be one dollar in lieu of the fifty cents as 
provided in said act." 

'The commissioners of immigration at the several ports 
shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate, to hold their office for a term 
of four years, unless sooner removed, and until their suc- 
cessors are appointed." 

The appointment of commissioners for the several ports, 
the increase of the head tax to $1.00 and the provision con- 
cerning repeal were all steps in the right direction toward 
better enforcement of the laws. The last provision was 
an attempt to get rid of the interference of the Courts in 
immigration matters. Formerly habeas corpus proceedings 
were frequently resorted to with the result that the 
efficiency of executive action was much impaired. The 
result of this new provision was that ''the right to deter- 
mine whether an alien was an immigrant was taken from 
the courts entirely; and the immigration acts were made 
applicable to aliens who, having acquired a domicile here 
and then gone abroad, attempted to re-enter the coun- 

=^28 Stat. 390, 



try.-*^ Unless, therefore, the United States admits that the 
immigrant is a citizen, the decision of the immigration offi- 
cers as to that fact and as to their jurisdiction is final.^"^ As 
this act applies, moreover, only when the decision is adverse 
to the right of the alien to land, if the decision be favor- 
able, the Federal authorities can still question his right, 
as for example under the Chinese Exclusion Acts.^^" 

By the Act of March 2, 1895,^^ making appropriations 
for the legislative, executive and judicial expenses of the 
Government, the title of the Superintendent of Immigra- 
tion was made Commissioner-General of Immigration ; and 
by the Act of June 6, 1900,^^ he was also charged with the 
administration of the Chinese exclusion laws. 

In his annual message of December 3, 1901, President 
Roosevelt stated: ''Our present immigration laws are unsat- 
isfactory. There should be a comprehensive law enacted 
with the object of working a three-fold improvement over 
our present system. First, we should aim to exclude abso- 
lutely not only all persons who are known to be believers in 
anarchistic principles or members of anarchistic societies, 
but also all persons who are of a low moral tendency or of 
unsavory reputation. This means that we should require 
a more thorough system of inspection abroad and a more 
rigid system of examination at our immigration ports, the 
former being especially necessary. 

''The second object of a proper immigration law ought 
to be to secure by a careful and not merely perfunctory 
educational test some intelligent capacity to appreciate 
American institutions and act sanely as American citizens. 
This would not ke.ep out all anarchists, for many of them 
belong to the intelligent criminal class. But it would do 

^Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538 (1895). 

^United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253 (1905), overruling Re Tom Yum, 
64 Fed. Rep. 485 (1894). This would seem to be a somewhat extreme 
statement of the principle envolved in the Ju Toy case. See cases cited 
on p. 97, note 22, and on p. 140, note 14. 

=*Li Sing V. United States, 180 U. S. 490 (1901). 

^Hall, Immigration, p. 216. 
28 Stat. 780. 

"31 Stat. 611. 


what is also in point — that is, tend to decrease the sum of 
ignorance, so potent in producing the envy, suspicion, 
mahgnant passion, and hatred of order out of which anar- 
chistic sentiment inevitably springs. Finally, all persons 
should be excluded who are below a certain standard of 
economic fitness to enter our industrial field as competitors 
with American labor. There should be proper proof of per- 
sonal capacity to earn an American living and enough 
money to insure a decent start under American conditions. 
This would stop the influx of cheap labor, and the resulting 
competition which gives rise to so much of bitterness in 
American industrial life, and it would dry up the springs 
of the pestilential social conditions in our great cities, where 
anarchistic organizations have their greatest possibility of 

''Both the educational and economic tests in a wise immi- 
gration law should be designed to protect and elevate the 
general body politic and social. A very close supervision 
should be exercised over the steamship companies which 
mainly bring over the immigrants, and they should be held 
to a strict accountability for any infraction of the law." 

This message but voiced the agitation for further restric- 
tion of immigration which had been growing stronger and 
louder during the ten years after the passage of the Act of 
1893. Rills addin g i11iter fl , tpg tr> fhp pvplnrlpH plo^gpg pgggprl 
one or the_ot her house of Congress seven times in this, 
period, and when in 1896 such an act passed both houses 
at the same time, it met with a veto by President Cleve- 
land. However, it was felt by most persons familiar with 
the subject that the Act of 1893 left many loopholes for 
the admission of undesirables, and that, pending radical 
action by Congress, the machinery of exclusion needed re- 
pairing and strengthening. Some of these defects were 
enumerated in the report of an Immigration Investigating 
Commission in 1895, while other amendments were sug- 
gested by witnesses testifying before the Industrial Com- 
mission in 1901. A general meeting of the commissioners 
of the various ports was held in 1902 to obtain an expres- 


sion of opinion as to the changes most needed. The final 
outcome of it all was the Act of March 3, 1903,^^ **an act 
to regulate the immigration of aliens into the United 

Section 1 provided that 'Hhere shall be levied, collected, i 
and paid a duty of two dollars for each and every passenger j 
not a citizen of the United States, the Dominion of Canada, y 
the Republic of Cuba, or the Republic of Mexico, who shall 
come by steam, sail, or other vessel from any foreign port 
to any port within the United States, or by any railway 
or any other mode of transportation, from foreign con- 
tiguous territory to the United States. . . . The money 
thus collected shall constitute a permanent appropriation- 
to be called the 'immigrant fund,' " to be used for purposes 
connected with the immigration of aliens. ! 

Section 2 provided that the following classes of aliens 
shall be excluded from admission into the United States: 
(1) all idiots; (2) epileptics; (3) insane persons, persons 
who have been insane within five years previous, and per- 
sons who have had two or more attacks of insanity at any 
time previously; (4) paupers, persons likely to become a 
public charge, and professional beggars; (5) persons af- 
flicted with a loathsome or with a dangerous contagious 
disease; (6) persons who have been convicted of a felony 
or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; 
(7) polygamists; (8) anarchists, or persons who believe in 
or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States or of all government or of 
all forms of law, or the assassination of public officials; (9) 
prostitutes, and persons who procure or attempt to bring 
in prostitutes or women for the purpose of prostitution; 
(10) those who have been, within one year from the date 
of the application for admission to the United States, de- 
ported as being under offers, solicitations, promises or agree- 
ments to perform labor or service of some kind therein; 
and also, (11) any person whose ticket or passage is paid 
for with the money of another, or who is assisted by others 

"32 Stat., part I, p. 1213. 


lal to come, unless it is affirmatively and satisfactorily shown 
ct that such person does not belong to one of the foregoing 
excluded classes. It was provided, however, that ''this 
section shall not be held to prevent persons living in the 
United States from sending for a relative or friend who is 
not of the foregoing excluded classes : Provided, That noth- 
ing in this act shall exclude persons convicted of an offense 
purely political, not involving moral turpitude: And pro- 
vided further. That the provisions of this law applicable to 
contract labor shall not be held to exclude professional 
actors, artists, lecturers, singers, ministers of any religious 
denomination, professors for colleges and seminaries, per- 
; sons belonging to any recognized learned profession, or per- 
sons employed strictly as personal or domestic servants." 

By Section 3, ''the importation into the United States 
of any woman or girl for the purposes of prostitution is 
hereby forbidden; and whoever shall import or attempt to 
import any woman or girl into the United States for the 
! purposes of prostitution, or shall hold or attempt to hold, 
I any woman or girl for such purposes in pursuance of such 
i illegal importation shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, 
on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned not less than 
one nor more than five years and pay a fine not exceeding 
five thousand dollars." 

Section 4 made it unlawful "to prepay the transportation 
or in any way to assist or encourage the importation or 
migration of any alien into the United States, in pursuance 
of any offer, solicitation, promise, or agreement, parole or 
special, expressed or implied, made previous to the impor- 
tation of such alien to perform labor or service of any kind, 
skilled or unskilled, in the United States." 

By Section 5 any violation of Section 4 is subject to a 
penalty of $1,000, while by Section 6 it is likewise punish- 
able "to assist or encourage the importation or migration 

" Through an oversight in drafting this act, which was intended to be a 
complete codification of the then existing law, no mention was made of 
contract laborers among the excluded classes, but it was held that they were 
still excluded under the previous Acts of 1885 and 1888, a construction justi- 
fied by the provisions in regard to contract laborers in this act. 


of any alien by promise of employment through advertise 
ments printed and published in any foreign country;" bu 
this does not apply to State or Territorial advertising of 
inducements to immigrants. Section 7 substantially re- 
enacts Section 4 of the Act of March 3, 1891. ' 

By Section 8 the bringing into or landing in the United ] 
States, or the attempt to do so, by vessel or otherwise, either 
personally or through an agent, of an alien not duly ad- 
mitted by an immigrant inspector, or not lawfully entitled 
to enter the United States, is a misdemeanor, subject to a. 
fine not exceeding $1,000 for each such act or attempt, or 
imprisonment for not less than three months nor more 
than two years, or to both such fine and imprisonment. 

Sections 9, 10, and 11 relate to the exclusion of diseased 
persons and to medical inspections. Section 9 provides that 
the bringing in of any person afflicted with a loathsome or 
a dangerous contagious disease by any person or company, 
except railway lines, is forbidden. A fine of $100 is attached 
for each and every violation if it appears that the disease 
might have been detected at the time of embarkation. 
Section 11 is to the effect that if a rejected alien is helpless 
from sickness, physical disability, or infancy, and is accom- 
panied by an alien whose protection is required, both shall 
be returned in the usual way. 

Section 12 substantially repeats Section 1 of the Act of 
March 3, 1893, except that the list or manifest must show, 
in addition to the other things, the alien's ''race;" whether 
he has fifty (instead of thirty) dollars; whether he is going 
to join a relative "or friend," and if so, what relative or 
friend and his name and complete address ; whether he was ; 
ever in prison or almshouse ''or an institution or hospital 
for the care and treatment of the insane;" whether he is an 
"anarchist;" and whether he is "coming by reason of any 
offer, solicitation, promise, or agreement, expressed or im- 
plied," to perform labor, and, if deformed or crippled, "for 
how long," as well as from what cause. 

Section 13 substantially repeats Section 2 of the Act of ; 
March 3, 1893, while Section 14 does likewise for Section 3 I 


)f the same act. Section 15 imposes, for the failure of 
the master or commanding officer of a vessel to deliver 
lists or manifests as required, a fine of $10 ''for each alien 
concerning whom the above information is not contained in 
any list as aforesaid." Sections 16 and 17 relate to the 
process of inspection and examination of immigrants. 

By Section 18 any owner, officer, agent or person in 
charge of a vessel who lands or permits to land an alien at 
any time or place other than that designated by the immi- 
gration officers is guilty of a misdemeanor, and punishable 
3y a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000 for each 
alien, or by imprisonment not exceeding a year, or both, 
and every alien so landed is to be deported. 

Section 19 substantially repeats Section 10 of the Act of 
March 3, 1891, with certain regulatory additions. By Sec- 
tion 20 ''any alien who shall come into the United States 
in violation of law or who shall be found a public charge 
therein, from causes existing prior to landing, shall be de- 
ported as hereinafter provided to the country whence he 
came at any time within two years after his arrival at the 
expense, including one-half of the cost of inland transporta- 
tion to the port of deportation, of the person bringing such 
alien into the United States, or if that cannot be done, then 
at the expense of the immigrant fund referred to in Section 
1 of this act." 

Section 21 contained a similar provision for deportation 
of all aliens, with the exception of public charges, found in 
the LTnited States, in violation of this act within the period 
of three years after landing or entry therein. 

By Sections 22 and 23 the Commissioner-General of 
Immigration administers the immigration laws, under the 
direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. 

By Section 24 the appointment of immigration inspectors 
and other employees is put under the Civil Service rules. 
This section also provides that the decision of an immigra- 
tion officer, if favorable to the alien, may be challenged by 
any other immigration officer, and in that case the alien is 
taken before a board of special inquiry. So. also is every 


alien who may not appear to the inspector to be "clearly f 
and beyond a doubt" entitled to land. vi 

Section 25 provides for a board of special inquiry at thei ? 
various ports of arrival, to consist of three members, such tli 
boards to "have authority to determine whether an alien 
who has been duly held shall be allowed to land or be de- ) 
ported.'' Their hearings are "separate and apart from ii' 
the public," but they keep records of their proceedings and 'i^ 
of testimony, "and the decision of any two members of a i ^ 
board shall prevail and be final," subject to an appeal by \\\ 
the alien or by a dissenting member to the Secretary of > < 
the Treasury, "whose decision shall then be final." j ' 

Section 26 is similar to Section 7 of the Act of March 3, '; 
1893, while Sections 27-32 contain regulatory clauses, some , 
of which were embraced in previous acts. 

By Section 33 the words "United States" mean, for the 
purpose of the act, "the United States and any waters, ter- i 
ritoiy, or other place now subject to the jurisdiction there- 
of." By Section 36 the laws relating to the immigration or j 
exclusion of Chinese remain unaffected. 

Section 37 states that if a person who had taken up his i 
permanent residence in the United States, and has declared i 
his intention to become a citizen, sends for his wife or I 
minor children, and the wife or any of the children is in- ' 
fected with a contagious disorder, such wife or child, if ! 
the disease was contracted on the ship, must be held till it 
shall be "determined whether the disorder will be easily 
curable, or whether they can be permitted to land without 
danger to other persons," and meanwhile they are not to 1 
be deported. 

Finally, by Section 39, anarchists, etc., are not to be nat- 
uralized, and are subject to fine and imprisonment for 
violation of this provision. 

The outstanding provisions in this act were (1) the in- 
crease in the number of excluded classes; (2) the special 
attention and penalties with respect to prostitutes; (3) 
the enlargement of the criminal offenses against the immi- 


gration acts; (4) the detention and return of aliens here in 
violation of the law; and (5) the better inspection of immi- 
grants. Concerning the manifests it is worth while to state 
that the information in them was and still is given chiefly 
from answers by the immigrants to the ship's officers. 
Many of the questions seem absurd, for, of course, no one 
is likely to admit that he belongs to any of the excluded 
classes. Frequently tlie immigrants are thoroughly coached 
as to what answers to give to questions before leaving the 
port of embarkation, and in other cases they are coached 
during the voyage. On inspection, therefore, the answers 
do not agree in many instances with the information on the 
manifest. In respect to the amount of money the change 
may be a truthful one, the immigrant having spent or 
gambled it away while on the voyage. 

By the act of February 14, IDOS,^"* to establish the De- 
partment of Commerce and Labor, the Commissioner- 
General of Immigration, the commissioners of immigration, 
the bureau of immigration, and the immigration service at 
large are transferred to that department, and are placed 
under its jurisdiction and supervision. 

The Act of March 22, 1904 extended the exemption 
from the head tax of two dollars to citizens of Newfound- 
land entering the United States. The Act of April 28, 
1904 ^^ provided that the words ''Secretary of the Treas- 
ury," wherever used in the Act of March 3, 1903, or in 
amendments thereto, or in prior acts in relation to alien 
immigration, be stricken out, and the words, ''Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor" inserted in lieu thereof. In relation 
to the enforcement of the immigration laws in the Philip- 
pines, the Act of February 6, 1905 stated: "That the 
immigration laws of the United States in force in the Phil- 
ippine Islands shall be administered by the officers of the 
general government thereof designated by an appropriate 
legislation of said government, and all moneys collected 

"32 Stat. 828-829. 

'"SS Stat., part I, p. 144. 

^33 Stat., part I, p. 591. 
" 33 Stat., part I, p. 692. 


under said laws as duty or head tax on alien immigrants 
coming into said islands shall not be covered into the gen- 
eral fund of the Treasury of the United States, but shall 
be paid into the treasury of said islands to be used and 
expended for the government and benefit of said islands." 

The Act of February 3, 1905 'Trovided, That the Com- 
missioner-General of Immigration, with the approval of 
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, shall have power to 
refund head tax heretofore and hereafter collected under 
section one of the immigration Act approved March 3, 1903, 
upon presentation of evidence showing conclusively that 
such collection was erroneously made." While by the Act 
of March 4, 1911,^^ these refunds are authorized to be made 
only ''upon presentation of evidence showing conclusively 
that collection was made through error of Government 

Due to the demand for further regulation and restriction 
of alien immigration a number of bills were introduced into 
both houses of Congress, which finally resulted in the 
passage of the Act of February 20, 1907.^^ 

By Section 1 the head tax is raised to $4.00 for every 
alien entering the United States except ''that the said tax 
shall not be levied upon aliens who shall enter the United 
States after an uninterrupted residence of at least one year, 
immediately preceding such entrance, in the Dominion of 
Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Cuba, or the Re- 
public of Mexico, nor upon otherwise admissible residents 
of any possession of the United States, nor upon aliens in 
transit through the United States, nor upon aliens who 
have been lawfully admitted to the United States and who 
later shall go in transit from one part of the United States 
to another through foreign contiguous territory." The tax 
was not to be levied on aliens arriving in Guam, Porto 
Rico, or Hawaii unless they came to the United States 
without having become a citizen of the United States. 
Power was given to the President, when he "shall be satis- 
fied that passports issued by any foreign government to its 

33 Stat., part I, p. 684. ^ 36 Stat. 1363, 1442. ^ 34 Stat., p. 898. 


citizens to go to any country other than the United States 
or to any insular possession of the United States or to the 
Canal Zone are being used for the purpose of enabling the 
holders to come to the continental territory of the United 
States to the detriment of labor conditions therein," to re- 
fuse to permit such citizens of the country issuing such 
passports to enter the United States. 

By Section 2 the excluded classes were extended to in- 
clude imbeciles; feeble-minded persons; persons afflicted 
with tuberculosis; persons not comprehended within any 
of the foregoing excluded classes who are found to be men- 
tally or physically defective, such mental or physical defect 
being of a nature which may affect the ability of the alien 
to earn a living; persons who admit having committed 
a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral 
turpitude; persons who admit their belief in the practice 
of polygamy; women or girls coming into the United States 
for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral 
purpose; persons who procure or attempt to bring in pros- 
titutes or women or girls for the purpose of prostitution or 
for any other immoral purpose; any person whose ticket 
or passage is paid for with the money of another, or who 
is assisted by others to come, unless it is affirmatively and 
satisfactorily shown that said ticket or passage was not 
paid for by any corporation, association, society, munici- 
pality, or foreign government, either directly or indirectly, 
except that this shall not apply to the tickets or passage 
of aliens in immediate and continuous transit through the 
United States to foreign contiguous territory; and all chil- 
dren under sixteen years of age, unaccompanied by one or 
both of their parents, at the discretion of the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor or under such regulations as he may 
from time to time prescribe. 

Section 3 stated that 'Vhoever shall keep, maintain, con- 
trol, support or harbor in any house or other place, for the 
purpose of prostitution, or for any other immoral purpose, 
any alien woman or girl, within three years after she shall 
have entered the United States, shall, in every such case, 



be deemed guilty of a felony, and on conviction thereof be 
imprisoned not more than five years and pay a fine of not 
more than five thousand dollars; and any alien woman or 
girl who shaU be found an inmate of a house of prostitution 
or practicing prostitution, at any time within three years 
after she shall have entered the United States, shall be 
deemed to be unlawfully within the United States and shall 
be deported/^ 

Sections 4-9 substantially repeated provisions in the act 
of 1903. 

By Section 9 a fine of $100 is imposed on any person 
bringing in aliens excluded for certain physical disabilities, 
if these existed and might have been detected previous to 

Section 12 added to the contents of the manifests for 
aliens coming into the United States. It also provided 
''that it shall further be the duty of the master or com- 
manding officer of every vessel taking alien passengers out 
of the United States, from any port thereof, to file before 
departure therefrom with the collector of customs of such 
port a complete list of all such alien passengers taken on 
board. Such list shall contain the name, age, sex, nation- 
ality, residence in the United States, occupation, and the 
time of last arrival of every such alien in the United 

The next change of any importance in this act occurs in 
Sections 20 and 21, which provide that all deportations may 
be within three years. Section 25 gives either the alien 
or any dissenting member of a board of special inquiry the 
right to appeal through the commissioner of immigration 
at the port of arrival and the Commissioner-General of 
Immigration to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, ex- 
cept in the cases of tuberculosis, loathsome or dangerous 
contagious disease, or mental or physical disability, as pre- 
viously provided for, in which case the decision of the 
board is final. 

Section 26 provides that "any alien liable to be excluded 


because likely to become a public charge or because of 
physical disabihty other than tuberculosis, or a loathsome 
or dangerous contagious disease, may if otherwise admis- 
sible, nevertheless be admitted in the discretion of the Sec- 
retary of Commerce and Labor upon the giving of a suitable 
and proper bond" against becoming a public charge, the 
amount and conditions to be prescribed by the said Secre- 

Section 39 created a joint commission on immigration to 
consist of three Senators, three Representatives and three 
persons appointed by the President of the United States, 
which commission was to study the immigration problem 
in all of its phases and report on the same. Authority was 
also given to the President to call an international confer- 
ence if he deemed it advisable. 

Section 40 provided for the establishment of a Division 
of Information in the Bureau of Immigration and Naturali- 
zation, whose duty shall be ''to promote a beneficial dis- 
tribution of aliens admitted into the United States among 
the several States desiring immigration." 

Section 42 dealt with accommodations on ships for immi- 
grant passengers. The last provisions on the subject had 
been in the Act of 1882. However, the provisions in section 
42 of the Act of 1907 were not adequate nor did they corre- 
spond to the facts, hence another law was passed, December 
19, 1908, which made our steerage provisions correspond 
with the British law on the subject, which was superior to 
ours in every way. 

We have noted in the above act only those provisions 
which made changes of any importance. We find ( 1 ) a fur- 
ther extension of the excluded classes; (2) more stringent 
provisions designed to better control the evil of prostitu- 
tion; (3) an extension to other classes of the fine for bring- 
ing in inadmissible aliens; (4) the beginning of permanent 
statistics of departing aliens; (5) no appeal permitted from 
the decision of a board of special inquiry in case of mental 
or physical disability; (6) the creation of the Joint Immi- 


gration Commission; and (7) the creation of the Division 
of Information. 

The Sundry Civil Appropriation Act of March 4, 1909 
repealed the law establishing the immigrant fund, while 
another act ''relating to outward alien manifests on vessels 
bound to Canada or Mexico/' also approved March 4, 
1909/- provided that until the provisions of Section 12 of 
the Act of February 20, 1907, "relating to outward alien 
manifests, shall be made applicable to passengers going out 
of the United States to Canada by land carriage, said pro- 
visions shall not apply to passengers going by vessels em- 
ployed exclusively in the trade between the ports of the 
United States and the Dominion of Canada and the Re- 
public of Mexico.'^ 

The next important addition to our immigration legisla- 
tion was the Act of March 26, 1910.^^ It extended the 
excluded classes, among which additions was the provision 
to keep out ''persons who are supported by or receive in 
whole or in part the proceeds of prostitution." The three 
year limit for deportation was removed as regards sexually 
immoral aliens by the provision that "any alien who shall 
be found an inmate of or connected with the management 
of a house of prostitution or practicing prostitution after 
such alien shall have entered the United States, or who shall 
receive, share in, or derive benefit from any part of the 
earnings of any prostitute; or who is employed by, in, or 
in connection with any house of prostitution or music or 
dance hall or other place of amusement or resort habitually 
frequented by prostitutes, or where prostitutes gather, or 
who in any way assists, protects, or promises to protect 
from arrest any prostitute, shall be deemed to be unlaw- 
fully within the United States and shall be deported." It 
also provided for punishment for attempts to return after 
deportation, and for deportation after the expiration of 
sentence for violations of this section of the act. The White 
Slave Traffic Act is closely connected with this phase of 

^^35 Stat. 969. 
^35 Stat. 1060. 

"36 Stat., p. 263. 

*"Junc 25, 1910; 36 Stat. 825. 


the immigration statutes and undertakes to lessen the 

By the Act of August 24, 1912 it was ^Trovided, That 
all charges for maintenance or return of Chinese persons 
applying for admission to the United States shall hereafter 
be paid or reimbursed to the United States by the person, 
company, partnership, or corporation bringing such Chi- 
nese to a port of the United States as applicants for ad- 

By the Act of March 4, 1913,^^ creating the Department 
of Labor, all the business of immigration and naturaliza- 
tion was given to the newly created department, so that 
now the Commissioner-General, the commissioners of immi- 
gration, the Bureau of Immigration, etc., are subject to the 
Secretary of Labor. 

Throughout the development of this body of laws well- 
marked tendencies can be traced. In the first place, the 
criteria of admission have steadily increased in severity, 
until in 1914 the law provided for the exclusion of vir- 
tually every undesirable class, with the probable exception 
of illiterates.^'^ In the second place, there is an increasing 
concentration of all business connected with immigration 
in the hands of a single branch of the Federal Government. 
Third, we find an increasing determination on the part of 
the United States to assert its right to protect itself against 
unwelcome additions to its population, not only by refusing 
them admission, but by expelling them from the country 
when we deem it expedient for our own welfare. It is evi- 
dent from the laws themselves that bar after bar was put 
up as time went on. Not once have we found a provision 
which let down a single bar once it had been put up. 
Although the early efforts were largely futile, the laws brief 
and the machinery inadequate, yet progress was rapid, so 
that by 1914 we were in a position to make further, more 
drastic and more effective restrictions than ever before. 

**37 Stat. 475. *'37 Stat. 736. 

*' On March 2, 1897, President Cleveland vetoed a bill which would have 
excluded illiterates. On February 14, 1913, President Taft vetoed a similar 
bill. See injra, pp. 130-132. 


While the World War delayed the necessity for such legis- 
lation yet it was soon evident that it had also crea+ed a 
greater necessity than ever before for restrictions more 
drastic than any previously dreamed of. 


Federal Immigration Legislation, 1914-1921 

i Recommendations of the Immigration Commission — Public opinion and 
I the Hteracy test— The Immigration Act of 1917— Act of December 26, 1920 
—The Alien Anarchist Act of 1918-1920— Act of May 10, 1920— Act of 
June 5, 1920— Summary. 

I In the ''Brief Statement of the Investigations of the Im- 
migration Commission, with Conclusions and Recommen- 

I dations," ^ we find some interesting facts concerning the 
operation of the laws then existing, together with recom- 
mendations for future legislation. The commission stated: 
"The present emigration from Europe to the United States 
is in the largest measure due to economic causes. . . . 
The United States Government makes no effort to induce 
immigration. . . . The immediate incentive of the great 
bulk of present-day immigration is the letters of persons 
in this country to relatives or friends at home. ... A large 
number of immigrants are induced to come by quasi labor 
agents. . . . Another important agency in promoting emi- 

i gration from Europe to the United States are the many 
thousands of steamship-ticket agents and subagents oper- 
ating in the emigrant-furnishing districts of southern and 
eastern Europe. . . . While, unfortunately, the present 
law, from the difficulty in securing proof, is largely in- 
effectual in preventing the coming of criminals and other 
moral delinquents, it does effectively debar paupers and the 
physically unsound and generally the mentally unsound. 
... It is highly desirable both for humanitarian and medi- 
cal reasons that aliens who are not admissible to the United 
States should be turned back at foreign ports of embarka- 

* Reports of the U. S. Immigration Commission, I, 25-49 (1911). 



tion, or better still, that they should not leave their homes | 
for such ports only to be returned. . . . No adequate means ; 
have been adopted for preventing the immigration of crim- , 
inals, prostitutes, and other morally undesirable aliens. In 
spite of the stringent law, criminals or moral defectives of 
any class, provided they pass the medical inspection, can 
usually embark at European ports and enter the United 
States without much danger of detection. . . . The coming i 
of criminals and persons of criminal tendencies constitutes ' 
one of the serious social effects of the immigration move- i 
ment. The present immigration law is not adequate to ' 
prevent the immigration of criminals, nor is it sufficiently ' 
effective as regards the deportation of alien criminals who ' 
are in this country. . . . The best place to bar alien crim- i 
inals is in their own countries, and the best way is through 
the utilization of the police records of such countries. . . . i 
The immigration of the mentally defective aliens is reason- ' 
ably well controlled under the existing immigration law. If ' 
is entirely possible, however, that persons may exhibit no ' 
evidence of insanity and yet that they may become insane : 
within a short time after their admission. Until some i 
means can be devised of informing the immigration author- ' 
ities as to the previous mental history of arriving aliens, ' 
the present safeguards are practically all that can be af- j 
forded. . . . There are probably at the present time rela- ! 
tively few actual contract laborers admitted. There are 
annually admitted, however, a very large number who come ' 
in response to indirect assurance that employment awaits 
them. It is clear that there is a large induced immigration 
due to labor agents in this country, who, independently or j 
in cooperation with agents in Europe, operate practically 
without restriction. As a rule only unskilled laborers are 
induced to come to the United States by this means. . . . ! 
Boards of special inquiry are one of the most, if not the 
most, important factor in the administration of the immi- 
gration law. ... In justice to the immigrant, and to the 
country as well, the character of these boards should be im- 
proved. They should be composed of men whose ability and 


i;raining fit them for the judicial functions performed, and 
i:he provision compelling their hearings to be separate 
and apart from the public should be repealed. . . . 

As a result of the investigation the Commission is unani- 
mously of the opinion that in framing legislation emphasis 
should be laid upon the following principles: 

1. Care should be taken that immigration be such both ' 
in quality and quantity as not to make too difiicult the 
process of assimilation. 

2. Further general legislation concerning the admission 
of aliens should be based primarily upon economic or busi- 
ness considerations touching the prosperity and economic 
well-being of our people. 

3. The measure of the rational, healthy development of 
a country is not the extent of its investment of capital, 
its output of products, or its exports and imports, unless 
;here is a corresponding economic opportunity afforded to 
the citizen dependent upon employment for his material, 
mental, and moral development. 

4. The development of business may be brought about 
by means which lower the standard of living of the wage 
earners. A slow expansion of industry which would permit 
the adaptation and assimilation of the incoming labor sup- 
ply is preferable to a very rapid industrial expansion which 
results in immigration of laborers of low standards and 
efiiciency, who imperil the American standard of wages and 
conditions of employment. 

The Commission agrees that: 

1. To protect the United States more effectively against 
the immigration of criminal and certain other debarred 
classes . . . 

(a) Aliens convicted of serious crimes within a period of 
five years after admission should be deported. 

(b) Under the provisions of Section 39 of the immigra- 
tion act of February 20, 1907, the President should appoint 
commissioners to make arrangements with such countries as 


have adequate police records to supply emigrants with' 
copies of such records, and that thereafter immigrants from 
such countries should be admitted to the United States only . 
upon the production of proper certificates showing an ab-i 
sence of convictions for excludable crimes. 

(c) So far as practicable the immigration laws should 
be so amended as to be applicable to alien seamen. 

(d) Any alien who becomes a public charge within three ! 
years after his arrival in this country should be subject to 
deportation in the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce \ 
and Labor. 

2. Sufficient appropriation shoulcf be regularly made to 
enforce vigorously the provisions of the laws regarding the 
importation of women for immoral purposes. 

3. As the new statute relative to steerage conditions took 
effect so recently as January 1, 1909, . . . the Commis- 
sion's only recommendation in this connection is that a 
statute be immediately enacted providing for the placing 
of Government officials ... on vessels carrying third-class 
or steerage passengers for the enforcement of the law and 
the protection of the immigrant. 

4. To strengthen the certainty of just and humane 
decisions of doubtful cases at ports of entry it is recom- 
mended — That section 25 of the immigration act of 
1907 be amended to provide that boards of special inquiry 
should be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor, and that they should be composed of men whose 
ability and training qualify them for the performance of 
judicial functions; that the provisions compelling their 
hearings to be separate and apart from the public should 
be repealed, and that the office of an additional Assistant 
Secretary of Commerce and Labor to assist in reviewing 
such appeals be created. 

5. To protect the immigrant against exploitation; to 
discourage sending savings abroad; to encourage perma- 

y nent residence and naturalization ; and to secure better dis- 
tribution of alien immigrants throughout the country . . . 


(a) The States should enact laws strictly regulating 
immigrant banks. 

(b) Proper State legislation should be enacted for the 
regulation of employment agencies. 

(c) Aliens who attempt to persuade immigrants not to 
become American citizens should be made subject to de- 

(d) The division of information should be so conducted 
as to cooperate with States desiring immigrant settlers; 
and information concerning the opportunities for settle- 
ment should be brought to the attention of immigrants in 
industrial centers who have been here for some time and 
who might be thus induced to invest their savings in this 
country and become permanent agricultural settlers. 

6. One of the provisions of Section 2 of the act of 1907 
reads as follows: 'And provided further, That skilled labor 
may be imported if labor of like kind unemployed cannot 
be found in this country.' . . . Under the law the Secretary 
of Commerce and Labor has no authority to determine the 
question of the necessity of importing such labor in advance 
of the importation, and it is recommended that an amend- 
ment to the law be adopted by adding to the clause cited 
above a provision to the effect that the question of the 
necessity of importing such skilled labor in any particular 
instance may be determined by the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor upon the application of any person interested 
prior to any action in that direction by such person; such 
determination by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to 
be reached after a full hearing and an investigation into the 
facts of the case. 

8. The investigations of the Commission show an over 
supply of unskilled labor in basic industries to an extent 
which indicates an over supply of unskilled labor in the 
industries of the country as a whole, and therefore demand 
legislation which will at the present time restrict the fur- 
ther admission of such unskilled labor. It is desirable in 
making the restriction that . . . 



(a) A sufficient number be debarred to produce i 
marked effect upon the present supply of unskilled labor. 

(b) As far as possible the aliens excluded should be those 
who come to this country with no intention to become 
American citizens or even to maintain a permanent resi- 
dence here, but merely to save enough, by the adoption, if 
necessary, of low standards of living, to return permanently 
to their home country. Such persons are usually men unac- 
companied by wives or children. 

(c) As far as possible the aliens excluded should also be 
those who, by reason of their personal qualities or habits, 
would least readily be assimilated or would make the least 
desirable citizens. 

The following methods of restricting immigration have 
been suggested : 

f (aj) The exclusion of those unable to read or write in 
some language. 

(b) The limitation of the number of each race arriving 
each year to a certain percentage of the average of that 
race arriving during a given period of years. 

(c) The exclusion of unskilled laborers unaccompanied 
by wives or families. 

(d) The limitation of the number of immigrants arriv- 
ing annually at any port. 

(e) The material increase in the amount of money re- 
quired to be in the possession of the immigrant at the port 
of arrival. 

(f) The material increase of the head tax. 

(g) The levy of the head tax so as to make a marked 
discrimination in favor of men with families. 

All these methods would be effective in one way or an- 
other in securing restrictions in a greater or less degree. 
"A majority of the Commission favor the reading and writ- 
ing test as the most feasible single method of restricting 
undesirable immigration." 

These recommendations have been considered at such 
length due to the fact that until the Commission made its 


report all discussions on the subject of immigration were, 
of necessity, based very largely upon conjecture or the 
personal observation of individuals, and, far too often, 
upon prejudice. But in this report we have a fair analysis 
of the situation. The results of the work of the Commis- 
sion are evident in the legislation passed since 1914. 

The Dillingham-Burnett bill,^ which was based upon the 
report of the Immigration Commission, passed both houses 
^of Congress by overwhelming majorities, but was vetoed by 
President Taft because it contained the reading or literacy 
test. The Senate promptly passed the bill over the Presi- 
dent's veto by a vote of 72 to 18, but the vote in the House, 
213 to 114, lacked by five votes the two-thirds necessary 
to override the executive's disapproval. The bill was rein- 
troduced in the following Congress in substantially the 
same form as before and passed the House by 252 to 126, 
and the Senate by 50 to 7, but President Wilson vetoed it 
and the House failed to overcome the veto by a narrow 
margin of four votes less than the required two-thirds, 
which action ended consideration of the matter, for the 
House having acted, the veto message did not come before 
the Senate. 

President Wilson vetoed this measure because it con- 
tained the literacy test, which seemed to him to be a radi- 
cal departure from the ''traditional" policy of this country. 
The only question in his mind was that he was not sure 
that the American people wanted to restrict immigration 
''by arbitrary tests," and he suggested that the party plat- 
forms speak out on the subject. 

Yet, since 1896 there had been sixteen recorded votes on 
bills embodying the literacy test in one form or another in 
either the House or the Senate and each time the measure 
passed by more than a majority.^ Three times both the 

^ Both Senator Dillingham and Representative Burnett were members of 
the Immigration Commission. 

'In an address in the Senate, March 16, 1896, Senator Lodge advocated 
a literacy test to restrict immigration. Congressional Record, 54th Con- 
gress, 1st session, pp. 2817-20. For a history of the literacy test, see H. P. 
Fairchild, Quarterly Journal of Economics, XXXI, p. 447. — 


Senate and the House together passed bills containing the-i 
provision, which thereby put it before the President for his 
signature or veto and in each case it was a veto.* Out of 
the 213 members of the House who voted in 1913 to pass 
the bill over President Taft's veto more than 160 were 
re-elected. Out of the 252 members of the House who 
voted in 1914 for the literacy test 185 were returned. The 
former was a Republican Congress and the latter a Demo- 
cratic one. 

It would seem that these activities of Congress simply re- 
flected a powerful opinion in favor of further restriction of 
immigration. The platforms of the political parties had, 
already spoken on the subject. In 1896 the Republican 
Party indorsed the literacy test in direct and specific terms, 
p without equivocation or evasion when it stated: 'Tor the 
j protection of the quality of our American citizenship and of 
I the wages of our working-men against the fatal competition 
/ of low-priced labor we demand that the immigration laws 
/ be thoroughly enforced and so extended as to exclude from 
I entrance to the United States those who can neither read 
I nor write." The Democratic Party platform of that year 
stated : ^'We hold that the most efficient way of protecting 
^American labor is to prevent the importation of foreign 
^ pauper labor to compete with it in the home market." In 
\ 1912 the Republican platform declared: ''We pledge the 
\ Republican Party to the enactment of appropriate laws 
\ to give relief from the constantly growing evil of induced 
] or undesirable immigration which is inimical to the prog- 
^ ress and welfare of the people of the United States." 

Undaunted by two defeats, Mr. Burnett again presented 
the bill at the next session of Congress. Both Houses of 
Congress again passed it by large majorities, and President 
Wilson again vetoed the measure. However, the. executive 
opposition could no longer hold in check the demand for 
further restriction, so the veto was overcome by a vote of 

*For President Cleveland's veto see U. S. 54th Congress, 2nd Session, 
Senate Doc. No. 185. For President Taft's veto see U. S. 62nd Congress, 
3d Session, Senate Doc. No. 1087. For President Wilson's first veto see 
U. S. 63d Congress, 3d Session, House Doc. No. 1527. 


287 to 106, or 25 more than the required two-thirds, in 
the House, and by a vote of 62 to 19 in the Senate. 

The Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, which is still 
part of our basic law on immigration, repeals the act of 
February 20, 1907, the Act of March 3, 1903, and all prior 
acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the new law. 

By Section 1 ''the word 'alien' wherever used in this act 
shall include any person not a native-born or naturalized 
citizen of the United States; but this definition shall not 
be held to include Indians of the United States not taxed 
or citizens of the islands under the jurisdiction of the United ^ 
States. . . . That the term 'seamen' as used in this act 
shall include every person signed on the ship's articles and 
employed in any capacity on board any vessel arriving 
in the United States from any foreign port or place." 

Section 2 states "That there shall be levied, collected, and 
paid a tax of $8 for every alien, including alien seamen 
regularly admitted as provided in this act, entering the 
United States: Provided, That children under sixteen 
years of age who accompany their father or their mother 
shall not be subject to said tax." In the Act of 1907 the 
tax was $4 on every alien without reference to age. In 
making this change in the law Congress adopted the sug-> 
gestion of the Immigration Commission to adjust the head 
tax so as to make a marked discrimination in favor of men 
with families. The other provisions in this section which 
relate to exemptions, payment, etc., are substantially the 
same as those in the Act of 1907.^ 

Section 3 enlarges the excluded classes to include "persons 
of constitutional psychopathic inferiority; persons with 
chronic alcoholism; vagrants; persons who have come in 
consequence of advertisements for laborers printed, pub- 
lished, or (distributed in ^ foreign country; contract labor- 
ers, . . . whether such offers or promises are true or 
false . . . ; (and) stowaways, except that any such stow- 
away, if otherwise admissible, may be admitted in the dis- 

'In this discussion we shall note only the changes made by the Act of 


cretion of ihe Secretary of Labor." The provision concern- 
ing the exclusion of anarchists was elaborated as follows: 
''anarchists, or persons who believe in or advocate the over- 
throw by force or violence of the Government of the United 
States, or of all forms of law, or who disbelieve in or are 
opposed to organized government, or who advocate the 
assassination of public officials, or who advocate or teach 
the unlawful destruction of property; persons who are 
members of or affiliated with any organization entertain- 
ing and teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized 
government, or who advocate or teach the duty, necessity, 
or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any 
officer or officers, either of specific individuals or of officers 
generally, of the Government of the United States or of 
any other organized government, because of his or their 
official character, or who advocate or teach the unlawful 
destruction of property." The exclusion of ''persons likely 
to become a public charge," was shifted from its position 
in section 2 of the immigration act of 1907 to a new position 
in section 3 of this act in order to indicate the intention 
of Congress that aliens shall be excluded upon said ground 
for economic as well as other reasons and with a view to 
overcoming the decision of the Supreme Court in Gegiow 
V. Uhl.^ In the Act of 1907 this class appeared between 
paupers and professional beggars in the list of excluded 
classes. Immigration officials had begun to consider cir- 
cumstances not directly connected with the alien in deter- 
mining whether he was likely to become a public charge if 
admitted. Under this interpretation persons were excluded 
because poor economic conditions existed in the locality to 
which they were destined, or even because of racial feeling 
against the alien in question, the theory being that if aliens 
could not get employment there they would necessarily 
become public charges. 

A group of Russian Ossetins, a Caucasus Mountain 
people, who came to New York, destined to Portland, Ore- 
gon, were denied admission as persons likely to become a 

*239 U. S. 3 (1915). 


public charge due chiefly to the poor industrial conditions 
existing in Portland at that time which would surely make 
it impossible for them to find employment there. The 
Supreme Court held, however, that aliens could be ex- 
cluded as ''likely to become a public charge" only ''on the 
ground of permanent personal objections accompanying 
them irrespective of local conditions." The court held that 
"persons likely to become a pubhc charge" were to be con- 
sidered as generally similar to and therefore not liable to 
different treatment than that accorded beggars, paupers, 
idiots, etc., since they were mentioned with such classes. 
The court held that the Statute "deals with admission 
to the United States, not to Portland." It was to over- 
come this decision of the Supreme Court that the change 
in the position of this clause was made, although Congress 
refused to adopt the statement, "persons likely for any 
reason to become a public charge." 

Several other changes were also made in the phrase- 
ology of the old law respecting excluded classes. The Act 
of 1907 excluded "insane persons, and persons who have 
been insane within five years" and also "persons who have 
had two or more attacks of insanity at any time previously," 
while this section simply reads "insane persons (and) per- 
sons who have had one or more attacks of insanity at any 
time previously." It is obvious that this is a more stringent 
provision with regard to the admission of insane persons, or 
those liable to become insane, than the former provisions 
on the subject. The Act of 1907 excluded "polygamists 
or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polyg- 
amy," while this law excludes "polygamists or persons 
who practice polygamy or believe in or advocate the prac- 
tice of polygamy." Again, "persons afflicted with tubercu- 
losis" in the former act is made to read "persons afflicted 
with tuberculosis in any form," in this Act of 1917. The 
former law excluded "women and girls coming into the 
United States for the purpose of prostitution or for any 

'See Wallis v. U. S. ex rel. Mannara, 273 Fed. Rep. 509 (1921) for a more 
recent definition of "persons likely to become a public charge." 


other immoral purpose," while in this act the prohibition 
applies to all ''persons," so that men as well as women and 
girls are excluded. 

The so called latitude and longitude clause — which is 
indeed an ''arbitrary" test, closed the door against virtually 
V all Asiatic immigration not already barred by the Chinese 
Exclusion Law and Treaty and the "Gentlemen's Agree- 
ment" with Japan, which has since been legislated out of 
existence by the Act of 1924. This clause states: "Unless 
otherwise provided for by existing treaties, persons who are 
natives of islands not possessed by the United States adja- 
cent to the continent of Asia, situate south of the twentieth 
parallel latitude north, west of the one hundred and sixtieth 
meridian of longitude east from Greenwich, and north of 
the tenth parallel of latitude south, or who are natives 
of any country, province, or dependency situated on the 
continent of Asia west of the one hundred and tenth 
meridian of longitude east from Greenwich and east of 
the fiftieth meridian of longitude east from Greenwich and 
south of the fiftieth parallel latitude north, except that por- 
tion of said territory situate between the fiftieth and the 
sixty-fourth meridian of longitude east from Greenwich 
and the twenty-fourth and thirty-eighth parallels of lati- 
tude north, and no alien now in any way excluded from, or 
prevented from entering, the United States shall be ad- 
mitted to the United States. The provision next fore- 
going, however, shall not apply to persons of the following 
status or occupations: Government officers, ministers or 
religious teachers, missionaries, lawyers, physicians, chem- 
ists, civil engineers, teachers, students, authors, artists, 
merchants, and travelers for curiosity or pleasure, nor to 
their legal wives or their children under sixteen years of 
age who shall accompany them or who subsequently may 
apply for admission to the United States, but such persons 
or their legal wives or foreign-born children who fail to 
maintain in the United States a status or occupation plac- 
ing them within the excepted classes shall be deemed to 
be in the United States contrary to law, and shall be sub- 



ject to deportation as provided in section nineteen of this j 

The countries included within this restricted area are 
India, Siam, Indo-China, Afghanistan, parts of Russian I 
Turkestan and Arabia on the continent of Asia, and New 
Guinea, Borneo, Sumatra, and Java as well as many lesser 
islands. Chinese are excluded by the Chinese Exclusion 
Law, while the Japanese were exempt until July 1, 1924 
under the ^^Gentlemen's Agreement." This latitude and 
longitude plan resulted from the objections of the Japanese 
Government to a clause excluding persons not eligible to. 
American citizenship through naturalization. Every gen-- 
eral immigration bill since 1911 included such a clause, but 
it was always eliminated prior to the Act of 1924. The 
effect of this latitude and longitude clause has been to 
cut off any possible immigration of east Indians or Hindus 
to our Pacific Coast, a result made all the more possible 
by Canada's drastic policy of exclusion of the same classes. 

However, the most important addition to the excluded 
classes w^as the one which had caused three Presidential 
vetoes, — the exclusion of all who can not read under a 
literacy test. The law stated: 'That after three months 
from the passage of this act, in addition to the aliens who 
are by law now excluded from admission into the United 
States, the following persons shall also be excluded from ad- 
-Mission thereto, to wit : 

^ All aliens over sixteen years of age, physically capable 
of reading, who can not read the English language, or some 
other language or dialect, including Hebrew or Yiddish: 
Provided, That any admissible alien, or any alien heretofore 
or hereafter legally admitted, or any citizen of the United 
States, may bring in or send for his father or grandfather 
over fifty-five years of age, his wife, his mother, his grand- 
mother, or his unmarried or widowed daughter, if other- 
wise admissible, whether such relative can read or not; and 
such relative shall be permitted to enter. That for the 
purpose of ascertaining whether aliens can read the immi- 
grant inspectors shall be furnished with slips of uniform 


size, prepared under the direction of the Secretary of Labor, 
each containing not less than thirty nor more than forty 
words in ordinary use, printed in plainly legible type in 
some one of the various languages or dialects of immigrants. 
Each alien may designate the particular language or dialect 
in which he desires the examination to be made, and shall 
be required to read the words printed on the slip in such 
language or dialect. That the following classes of persons 
shall be exempt from the operation of the literacy test, to 
wit: All aliens who shall prove to the satisfaction of the 
proper immigration officer or to the Secretary of Labor that 
they are seeking admission to the United States to avoid 
religious persecution in the country of their last permanent 
residence, whether such persecution be evidenced by overt 
acts or by laws or governmental regulations that discrimi- 
nate against the alien or the race to which he belongs be- 
cause of his religious faith; all aliens who have been law- 
fully admitted to the United States and who have resided 
therein continuously for five years and who return to the 
United States within six months from the date of their 
departure therefrom; all aliens in transit through the 
United States; all aliens who have been lawfully admitted 
to the United States and who later shall go in transit from 
one part of the United States to another through foreign 
contiguous territory." 

It is to be noted that this test is so simple it would 
seem that almost anyone can fit himself to meet it in a 

^ short time if he so desires.^ In fact, many critics consider 
the test a big joke. Another weakness or difficulty with it 

^ is that it is qualitative and fixed no numerical limit to im- 
migration. In 1922, there were admitted 234,623 immi- 
grants who could read and write; 1,476 who could read but 
could not write; and 10,743 who could neither read nor 
write, while only 1,249 were debarred under the literacy 

^ test, 384 of whom were Mexicans. In 1923 the number 

'Such books as MacLean, Modern Immigration, and Jenks and Lauck, 
The Immigration Problem, discuss the relative merits of a literacy test. 
See especially, Warne, The Tide of Immigration, and Fairchild, The Lit- 
eracy Test and Its Making. 



admitted who could read and write was 419,189; who could 
read but could not write, 558; and who could neither read 
nor write, 11,356. Those debarred numbered 2,095, of 
whom 602 were Mexicans, 672 Finns and 118 (South) 
Italians. It is obvious from these figures that no great 
numerical restriction has been brought about by this pro- 
vision.^ It is impossible to state how many more would 
come but for this restriction who never leave for the United 
States knowing they cannot gain admission due to their 
illiteracy. In 1914 the total immigration was 1,218,480, 
of which 260,152 or 21.4 percent were illiterates 14 years of 
age and over, from which figures it would seem that the 
law does keep many from trying to gain admittance. How- 
ever, it has great potential value today against at least 
one particular country against which it would seem we 
need further restriction. The percentage or quota law does 
not apply to Mexico. The result is that many Mexican 
laborers are entering the United States each year to re- 
place the supply of cheap European labor which has been 
cut off by the quota provisions, some of whom come in in 
violation of the contract labor law, a practice which is 
difficult to stop. However, many of them are illiterate 
and are subject to exclusion under the literacy test. If 
this provision were properly enforced against these Mexi- 
can laborers many of them would thus be excluded. Here 
seems to be the most important work today to be done 
under the literacy provision and this gives it great potential 

Sections 5-7 deal with contract labor, induced immigra- 
tion and solicitation of immigration by transportation com- 
panies. The former law against the importation of labor 
under contract is amended so as to provide for the exclusion 
of laborers coming by reason of false, as well as true, 
promise of employment. The exception to the contract 
labor law that skilled labor may be imported ^^if labor of 
like kind unemployed cannot be found in this country" 

"See Annual Reports of the Commissioner-General of Immigration for 
such annual statistics. 



was amended to read in addition, "and the question of 
necessity of importing such skilled labor in any particular 
instance may be determined by the Secretary of Labor upon 
! the application of any person interested, such application 
i to be made before such importation, and such determina- 
tion by the Secretary of Labor to be reached after a full 
hearing and an investigation into the facts of the case." 
^ Under the previous law the necessity could not be deter- 
mined prior to the arrival of the imported laborers at a 
United States port. The law added nurses to the exempt 
i professional classes. It also provided that violators of 
^ the law concerning contract laborers, induced immigra- 
tion and solicitation of immigration by steamship com- 
j panics, etc., ''shall be subject to either the civil or the 
criminal prosecution, or both, prescribed by section five of 
this act," which made violators subject to a fine of $1,000 
and imprisonment for a term of not less than six months 
nor more than two years. Even more important is the 
authority given to the Secretary of Labor to impose an 
administrative fine of $400 "for each and every such viola- 
tion," and "whenever it shall be shown to the satisfaction 
of the Secretary of Labor that the provisions of this sec- 
tion are persistently violated by or on behalf of any trans- 
portation company, it shall be the duty of said Secretary to 
deny to such company the privilege of landing alien immi- 
grant passengers of any or all classes at United States ports 
for such a period as in his judgment may be necessary to 
insure an observance of such provisions" against the stimu- 
lation of immigration by such transportation companies. 

Section 11a provided for the placing of Government 
officials, both men and women, on board ships bringing 
immigrants to the United States, the purpose stated being 
the enforcement of the law and the protection of the im- 
migrants. The law stated: "When such inspectors and 
matrons are detailed for said duty they shall remain in 
that part of the vessel where immigrant passengers are 
carried; and it shall be their duty to observe such pas- 
sengers during the voyage and report to the immigration 


authorities in charge at the port of landing any informa- 
tion of value in determining the admissibility of such pas- 
sengers that may have become known to them during the 
voyage." This provision resulted from one of the recom- 
mendations of the Immigration Commission, which was 
prompted by the findings of the agents of the Commission 
who traveled in the guise of immigrants in the steerage of a 
number of trans-Atlantic ships and both observed and 
experienced the hardships and indignities to which immi- 
grants were subjected on some of the lines. 

Section 12 added a number of topics to the manifests 
concerning which information must be given for immigrants 
entering and departing from the United States and for 
citizens of the United States "departing who do not in- 
tend to reside permanently in a foreign country.'^ 

Section 16 expands the details concerning the physical 
and mental examination of all arriving aliens, among which 
provisions we find that "immigration inspectors are hereby 
authorized and empowered to board and search for aliens 
any vessel, railway car, or any other conveyance, or vehicle 
in which they believe aliens are being brought into the 
United States.". . . "All aliens coming to the United States 
shall be required to state under oath the purposes for which 
they come, the length of time they intend to remain in the 
United States, whether or not they intend to abide in the 
United States permanently and become citizens thereof, 
and such other items of information regarding themselves 
as will aid the immigration officials in determining whether 
they belong to any of the excluded classes enumerated in 
section three hereof." 

In Section 17 it was provided that all hearings before 
the boards of special inquiry shall be separate and apart 
from the public, "but the immigrant may have one friend 
or relative present under such regulations as may be pre- 
scribed by the Secretary of Labor." 

Section 19 makes a radical change in the policy of the 
government concerning the deportation of aliens on account 
of crimes committed after landing in the United States. 


Previous to this there were no provisions concerning de- 
portation except in the cases of prostitution and related 
offenses. The law states: 'That at any time within five 
years after entry, any alien who at the time of entry was 
a member of one or more of the classes excluded by law; 
any alien who shall have entered or who shall be found in 
the United States in violation of this Act, or in violation 
of any other law of the United States any alien who at 
any time after entry shall be found advocating or teaching 
the unlawful destruction of property, or advocating or 
teaching anarchy, or the overthrow by force or violence 
of the Government of the United States or of all forms of 
law or the assassination of public officials; any alien who 
within five years after entry becomes a public charge from 
causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen subsequent 
to landing; except as hereinafter provided, any alien who is 
hereafter sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year 
or more because of conviction in this country of a crime in- 
volving moral turpitude, committed within five years after 
the entry of the alien to the United States, or who is here- 
after sentenced more than once to such a term of imprison- 
ment because of conviction in this country of any crime 
involving moral turpitude, committed at any time after 
entry . . . shall, upon the warrant of the Secretary of 
Labor, be taken into custody and deported: Provided, 
That the marriage to an American citizen^^ of a female of 
the sexually immoral classes the exclusion or deportation 
of which is prescribed by this act shall not invest such 
female with United States citizenship if the marriage of 
such alien female shall be solemnized after her arrest or 
after the commission of acts which make her liable to de- 
portation under this Act." 

''"The latter part of this provision relates to Chinese entering or found 
in the United States in violation of the Chinese Exclusion Laws. 

"This provision has proved highly unsatisfactory due to its vague 

^ This provision is now rendered superfluous by the Act of Sept. 22, 1922, 
since the foreign woman does not now acquire American citizenship ipso 
facto by marriage to an American citizen. See article by C. D. Hill, "Citi- 
zenship of Married Women," Amer. Jour, oj Intertiational Law, Vol. 18, 
pp. 720-736 (1924). Also see infra, pp. 176-177. 


Deportation is not to be made if a criminal is pardone( 
or if the court imposing sentence makes a recommendatioi 
that deportation shall not be made. The proviso quotec i 
above is another important addition to the law respect 
ing the immoral classes. The law was also strengthenec 
against such classes when the former wording 'Vomen an( 
girls coming into the United States for the purpose oj 
prostitution, etc./' was changed to ''persons." 

Sections 31-36 undertake to close up an avenue through 
which many aliens were illegally entering the United States. 
Section 31 provides 'That any person, including the owner, 
agent, consignee, or master of any vessel arriving in the 
United States from any foreign port or place, who shall 
knowingly sign on the ship's articles, or bring to the United 
States as one of the crew of such vessel, any alien, witli 
intent to permit such alien to land in the United States in 
violation of the laws and treaties of the United States regu- 
lating the immigration of aliens, or who shall falsely and 
knowingly represent to the immigration authorities at the 
port of arrival that any such alien is a bona fide member of 
the crew, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding $5,000." 

Section 32 provides that "no alien excluded from admis- 
sion into the United States. . . . and employed on board 
any vessel arriving in the United States from any foreign 
port or place, shall be permitted to land in the United 
States, except temporarily for medical treatment or pur- 
suant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor 
providing for the ultimate removal or deportation of such 
alien from the United States." The master, owner, agent 
or consignee is subject to a fine of $1,000 if he fails to detain 
any such alien on board. 

Section 33 declares "That it shall be unlawful and be 
deemed a violation of the preceding section to pay off or 
discharge any alien employed on board any vessel arriving 
in the United States from any foreign port or place, unless 
duly admitted pursuant to the laws and treaties of the 
United States regulating the immigration of aliens: Pro- 


Oft i^ided, That in case any such alien intends to reship on 
board any other vessel bound to any foreign port or place, 
he shall be allowed to land for the purpose of so reshipping, 
lunder such regulations as the Secretary of Labor may pre- 
scribe to prevent aliens not admissible . . . from remaining 
jpermanently in the United States." 

I Section 34 states 'That any alien seaman who shall 
land in a port of the United States contrary to the pro- 
visions of this act shall be deemed to be unlawfully in the 
'United States, and shall, at any time within three years 
1 thereafter, upon the warrant of the Secretary of Labor be 
taken into custody and brought before a board of special 
inquiry for examination as to his qualifications for admis- 
I sion to the United States, and if not admitted said alien sea- 
man shall be deported." 

Sections 35 and 36 provide further restrictions to control 
the problem arising from the illegal entrance of aliens as v 
seamen. The latter section requires a list containing 
among other information, the names of all aliens employed 
on all vessels coming into and departing from any port in 
the United States. 

The Act of 1917 makes a far wider use of the administra- 
tive fine than the former laws. It also increases it from 
I $100 to $200. This fine or penalty, which is imposed by the 
I Secretary of Labor on steamship companies, etc., is a very 
important factor in preventing such companies from bring- 
ing excluded persons to the United States. This act also 
imposes another heavy penalty in all cases which are sub- 
ject to an administrative fine, for it provides that in addi- 
tion to the regular penalty, the steamship company con- 
cerned shall be assessed an amount equal to that paid by 
each alien of the classes named for his transportation from 
the initial point of his departure for the United States, 
which amount is to be paid to the debarred alien by a 
United States official. 

Section 38 provided that the Act should go into effect on 
and after May 1, 1917, except the literacy test, which be- 



came operative on May 5, 1917. Such then are the im 
portant additions made to our immigration laws by th( 
Act of 1917. In excluding illiterates, Asiatics and alien: ' 
r entering illegally as seamen, in addition to the exclusior 
] of other new classes, together with strengthening pro 
i visions for the exclusion of certain classes already pro- 
hibited, the law was made more stringent than ever be- 
' fore. 

An act of December 26, 1920 which provided "for the 
treatment in hospitals of diseased alien seamen," placed 
all expenses connected therewith upon the owner, agent, 
consignee, or master of the vessel and stated that such ex- 
penses are not to be deducted from the seaman's wages. 

An Act approved October 16, 1918 as amended by the 
Act approved June 5, 1920, which was "An act to exclude 
and expel from the United States aliens who are members 
of the anarchistic and similar classes," provided: "That the 
following aliens shall be excluded from admission into the 
United States: 

(a) Aliens who are anarchists; ^ 

(b) Aliens who advise, advocate, or teach, or who are 
members of or affiliated with any organization, association, 
society or group, that advises, advocates, or teaches, oppo- 
sition to all organized governments; 

(c) Aliens who believe in, advise, advocate, or teach, 
or who are members of, or affiliated with any organization, 
association, society, or group, that believes in, advises, 
advocates, or teaches: (1) the overthrow by force or 
violence of the Government of the United States or of 
all forms of law, or (2) the duty, necessity, or propriety 
of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, 
either of specific individuals or of officers generally, of the 
Government of the United States or of any other organized 
government, because of his or their official character, or 
(3) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property, 
or (4) Sabotage ;^^ 

"Soc United States ex rel. Diamond v. Uhl, 266 Federal Reporter 35 
(1920) for a case involving the advocacy of assassination and of unlawful 


(d) Aliens who write, publish, or cause to be written 
or pubUshed, or who knowingly circulate, distribute, print, 
or display, or knowingly cause to be circulated, distributed, 
printed, published, or displayed, or who knowingly have 
in their possession for the purpose of circulation, distribu- 
tion, publication, or display, any written or printed matter, 
advising, advocating, or teaching opposition to all organized 
government, or advising, advocating, or teaching: (1) the 
joverthrow by force or violence of the Government of the 
lUnited States or of all forms of law, or (2) the duty, neces- 
sity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any 
officer or officers of the Government of the United States 
or of any other organized government, or (3) the unlawful 
damage, injury, or destruction of property, cr (4) Sabotage; 

(e) Aliens who are members of or affiliated with any 
organization, association, society, or group, that writes, 
circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, or 
causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, pub- 
lished, or displayed, or that has in its possession for the 
I purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, issue, or 
display, any written or printed matter of the character 
in subdivision (d). 

For the purpose of this section: (1) the giving, loaning, 
or promising of money or anything of value to be used for 
the advising, advocacy, or teaching of any doctrine above 
enumerated shall constitute the advising, advocacy, or 
teaching of such doctrine; and (2) the giving, loaning, or 
promising of money or anything of value to any organiza- 
I tion, association, society, or group of the character above 
described shall constitute affiliation therewith." 
i Section 2 provides that ''the provisions of this section 
I shall be applicable to the classes of aliens mentioned in this 
act irrespective of the time of their entry into the United 
States," and it provides for the deportation of such. 

Section 3 declared it to be a felony for any alien to enter 
or attempt to enter the United States after once being 

destruction of property during a strike. The court affirmed the order of 
deprr nt'rn. 


excluded, subject to imprisonment for not more than five 
years and to deportation agam. 

The details of this law have been given in full for a two- ^ 
fold purpose: first, the law goes about as far as it is possible 
^ to go in providing for the exclusion of radical aliens. Under 
it, our country could be purged of every such alien if 
the law were properly enforced; and second, to indicate 
clearly that there is a law for such deportations. Just after 
the passage of this act, many protests were voiced against 
the deportations then being made.^^ 

A joint resolution authorizing the readmission to the 
\ United States of certain aliens who had been conscripted 
or had volunteered for service with the military forces of 
the United States or cobelligerent forces was approved 
October 19, 1918. Its provision permitting the readmis- 
sion of these aliens, who would otherwise be excluded, ''if 
it is proved that the disability was acquired while the alien 
was serving in the military or naval forces of the United Ijl 
States or of any one of the nations cobelligerent of the 
United States," was proper and was designed to prevent , 
obvious injustice to such persons.^^ / |j 

The Act of May 10, 1920 provides further for the de-i| 
portation of certain undesirable aliens and denies readmis-. 
sion to those deported, who violate certain acts of the! 
United States which are designated in this act. The Act 
of June 5, 1920 providing for the admission of certain female | 
aliens stated : "That an alien who cannot read may, if other- I 
wise admissible, be admitted if, within five years after this ' 
act becomes law, a citizen of the United States who has 
served in the military or naval forces of the United States 
during the war with the Imperial German Government, j 

"As to what constitutes a "fair hearing" see Whitfield, Immigrant In- 
spector, et al. V. Hanges et al., 222 Federal Reporter 745 (1915). As to 
the finality of decisions by Immigration Authorities see U. S. ex rel. 
Barlin v. Rodgers, 191 Federal Reporter 973 (1911). For protests against ! 
such deportations, see Chafee, Freedom of Speech (1920); Panunzio, C. M., i 
The Deportation Cases of 1019-1920 (1921); Post, L. F., The Deportation 
Delirium of 1920 (1923); "Investigation of L. F. Post on Deportations," i 
House Committee on Rules, 66th Cong., 2d Ses., on H. R. 522; Stephenson, |i 
G. M., History of American Immigration, Ch. XIV (1926), 

" Also see Act of May 26, 1926, infra, p. 172, note 3. 


requests that such alien be admitted, and with the approval 
of the Secretary of Labor, marries such alien at a United 
States Immigration station." 

Such then were the various restrictions on immigra- 
Ition in existence in the United States prior to the Quota 
Act of May 19, 1921, as amended by the Act of May 11, 
1922. It is worth while to note again, that since the be- 
ginning of Federal legislation bar after bar has been put 
up, restriction after restriction has been created — with 
not a single step backward. Yet all of these restrictions 
so far have been qualitative. Before 1910 it was evident 
that some numerical restrictions would be necessary to stem 
the ever-swelling tide, in addition to the existing qualita- 
tive restrictions. Action was delayed, however, until the 
Immigration Commission could report and then before 
any legislation could be passed, the World War suddenly 
and virtually stopped all immigration to the United States. 
Yet that very war, in the long run, necessitated some plan 
for numerical restriction to an even greater extent than 
was the case prior to 1914. In the next two chapters we 
shall analyze first the emergency legislation that was en- 
acted, and then the Act of 1924, in each of which was in- 
corporated a plan for numerical restriction. 


The Emergency Quota Legislation, 1921-1924 

Purpose of the Act of May 19, 1921— Provisions of the act — The first year 
of its operation — Problems created by it — Its life extended for two years by 
the Act of May 11, 1922 — The second year under the law — The third year 
under the law — Effects on the old and new immigration — Net immigration 
into the United States — Immigration by races or peoples — English-speaking 
immigrants — Conclusion. 

The immigration act of May 19, 1921 was passed as a 
makeshift, temporary, emergency measure to stem the tide 
of those unfortunates of Europe who desired to come into 
this so-called ''Land of Promise," in order to escape the 
misery and burdens which they inherited from the war. 
805,228 had already come in the preceding year and mil- 
lions were preparing to depart from their native lands.^ 
It was evident that fully two millions would be willing and 
able to come each year for several years against which the 
literacy and other tests would afford only a frail barrier. 
Here was an emergency. There was little or no time for 
an intelligent and historical study of the question. It 
would take several years to do that; but in the meantime 
drastic numerical or quantitative restrictions were neces- 
sary. The quota act of May 19, 1921, whose life was ex- 
tended by the act of May 11, 1922 to July 1, 1924 pro- 
vided for a quantitative limitation, which thereby gave 
Congress the opportunity to work out a more permanent 
plan for numerical restriction. 

Section 2(a) provided, 'That the number of aliens o'f 
any nationality^ who may be admitted under the immigra- 

*This statement is based on various reports made by government offi- 
cials, including those of the Commissioner-General of Immigration. In an 
address before the Chicago Association of Commerce, June 1, 1927, Senator 
Reed of Pennsylvania stated that there are now more than 1,500,000 
foreigners seeking to enter the United States; this number having already 
filed applications at our consulates abroad. 

* See article by Dickinson, E. D., "The Meaning of Nationality in the 
Recent Immigration Acts," American Journal of International Law, Vol. 
19 (1925), pp. 344-347. 



tion laws to the United States in any fiscal year shall be 
1 limited to 3 per centum of the number of foreign-born per- 
sons of such nationality resident in the United States as 
determined by the United States census of 1910. This pro- 
vision shall not apply to the following, and they shall not 
be counted in reckoning any of the percentage limits pro- 
vided in this act: (1) Government officials, their families, 
attendants, servants, and employees; (2) aliens in con- 
tinuous transit through the United States; (3) aliens law- 
fully admitted to the United States who later go in transit 
from one part of the United States to another through 
foreign contiguous territory; (4) aliens visiting the United 
States as tourists or temporarily for business or pleasure; 
(5) aliens from countries immigration from which is regu- 
lated in accordance with treaties or agreements relating 
solely to immigration; (6) aliens from the so-called Asiatic 
barred zone, as described in section three of the Immigra- 
tion Act; (7) aliens who have resided continuously for at 
least five years immediately preceding the time of their ap- 
plication for admission to the United States in the Dominion 
of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Cuba, the Re- 
public of Mexico, countries of Central and South America, 
or adjacent islands; or (8) aliens under the age of eighteen 
who are children of citizens of the United States." 

^'(b) For the purpose of this Act nationality shall be 
determined by country of birth. . . 

(c) This subdivision provided the manner in which the 
law was to be put into operation and how conditions re- 
sulting from changed boundaries were to be dealt with. 

"(d) When the maximum number of aliens of any nation- 
ality who may be admitted in any fiscal year under this 
Act shall have been admitted all other aliens of such 
nationality, except as otherwise provided in this Act, who 
may apply for admission during the same fiscal year shall 
be excluded; Provided, That the number of aliens of any 
nationality who may be admitted in any month shall not 
exceed 20 per centum of the total number of aliens of such 
nationality who are admissible in that fiscal year : Provided 



further, That aliens returning from a temporary visit 
abroad, aliens who are professional actors, artists, lecturers, 
singers, nurses, ministers of any religious denomination, 
professors for colleges or seminaries, aliens belonging to any 
recognized learned profession, or aliens employed as do- 
mestic servants, may, if otherwise admissible, be admitted 
notwithstanding the maximum number of aliens of the same 
nationality admissible in the same month or fiscal year, as 
the case may be, shall have entered the United States; but 
aliens of the classes included in this proviso who enter the 
United States before such maximum number shall have 
entered shall (unless excluded by subdivision (a) from 
being counted) be counted in reckoning the percentage 
limits provided in this Act: Provided further. That in the 
enforcement of this Act preference shall be given so far as 
possible to the wives, parents, brothers, sisters, children 
under eighteen years of age, and fiancees, (1) of citizens 
of the United States, (2) of aliens now in the United States 
who have applied for citizenship in the manner provided 
by law, or (3) of persons eligible to United States citizen- 
ship who served in the military or naval forces of the 
United States at any time between April 6, 1917, and 
November 11, 1918, both dates inclusive, and have been 
separated from such forces under honorable conditions." 

Section 3 provided for the publication by the Commis- 
sioner-General of Immigration of a statement showing the 
annual and monthly quotas of each nation, and 'Vhen 75 
per centum of the maximum number of any nationality 
admissible during the fiscal year shall have been admitted 
such statements shall be issued weekly thereafter." 

Section 4 stated ''That the provisions of this Act are in 
addition to and not in substitution for the provisions of 
the immigration laws." 

Section 6 provided that it shall be unlawful for any person 
to bring into the United States any alien not admissible 
under the terms of this Act or regulations made there- 
under, subject to a fine of $200 for each alien so brought, 
''and in addition a sum equal to that paid by such alien 


for his transportation from the initial point of departure, 
indicated in his ticket, to the port of arrival, such latter 
sum to be delivered by the collector of customs to the alien 
on whose account assessed." The original act imposed no 
penalty for its excess of quota, the above penalties being 
provided by the joint resolution approved May 11, 1922, 
and it is certain that a considerable part of the difficulties 
which arose during the first year of the law's history would 
have been avoided had violations of the law resulted in 
monetary loss to the carriers concerned. 

Under the original act aliens were exempt from the 
quota provisions after one year's residence in a country of 
the New World, but as amended a five year's residence 
was required, due to the fact that several thousand 
Europeans, who because of quota limitations and other 
obstacles could not come to the United States, emigrated 
to Cuba, Mexico, and South America with the obvious 
intention of coming here at the expiration of one year. 
The law, however, did not prohibit the entrance of such 
aliens within five years but only provided that they should 
be subject to the quota and other immigration law^ if they 
applied for admission within that period. 

In effect the law applied only to immigration from 
Europe, Siberia, Persia, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the 
territory formerly comprising Asiatic Turkey, and certain 
islands in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, which is also 
true of the present quota law. 

The statistical record of operations under the quota 
law for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1922, is shown in the 
table on page 147. 

During the fiscal year 1921-1922, there were 309,556 im- 
migrant aliens admitted, being less than the number for 
the fiscal year 1921 by 495,672. During this same period 
122,949 non-immigrant ahens, viz., those not coming for 
permanent residence, entered, as compared with 172,935 
the year previous, — a decrease of 49,986. During the year 
13,731 aliens were rejected for all causes, a decrease from 
the prercding year of only 48, and 4,345 were arrested after 



Table 1 — Immigration of Aliens into the United States Under the 
Per Centum Limit Act of May 19, 1921, during the Fiscal Year 1921-22 

Country or place oi birtn. 

1 otal ad- 
fiscal year 


to quota 
tne tiscal 


Per cent 
of quota 









Rplffium . . . 








1 A OOO 

no o 






Denmark . . . . 




















Greece . . . 
























Poland (includinf eastern Galicia) 




Portugal (including Azores and Madeira 









T?iis«;ia finflndino' Sihpria^ 
















TTnitpd TCiriffdnm 








Other Europe (including Andorra, Gibraltar, 

T ,ippV>tpn>;tpin TV/Tnlffi IVTpmpl TVTnnnpn S'ln 

XJlCV^ll iJdlo LCI J-A, l.\±CXx\jCXt XVJ-dlld, XtJ.vJ11CX\-/\_/, kJcLll 

IVTfirinn nnrl TfPinnH^ 







"D ~ 1 „ i- ^ -rt. — 







Turkey (Europe and Asia, including Smyrna 




Other Asia (including Persia, Rhodes, Cyprus, 

and territory other than S'beria. which is 

not included in the Asiatic barred zone. 

Persons born in Siberia are included in the 




^ All tables in this chapter are taken from annual reports of the Com- 
missioner-General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor. 



Table 1. — Immigration of Aliens into the United States Under the 
Per Centum Limit Act of May 19, 1921, during the Fiscal Year 
mi-22.— {Continued.) 

1 1 TTi h p r 


Total ad- 




Per cent 

Country or place of birth 


to quota 

of quota 

fiscal year 




the fiscal 













Atlantic islands (other than Azores, Madeira, 

and islands adjacent to the American con- 




Pacific islands (other than New Zealand and 

islands adjacent to the American conti- 








entry and deported, as compared with 4,517 in the fiscal 
year 1921. 

The marked decline in immigration for the year 1921-1922 
must undoubtedly be attributed to the operation of the 
Act of May 19, 1921. The admissions in excess of quotas, 
shown in the above table, the total number being 2,508, 
represented a theoretically temporary disposition of cases 
in which absolute and immediate rejection would have 
inflicted great hardship on innocent immigrants. Refer- 
ence to the sources of the principal excesses — Other Asia; 
Turkey, Hungary, Poland, and Yugoslavia — is probably 
sufficient to explain and also to justify the action taken by 
the officials in exercising leniency in these cases. Nearly 
all of the excess admissions occurred during the first six 
months of the fiscal year, before the seriousness of the 
law had been fully realized. The arrival of these aliens 
after their respective quotas were exhausted represents 
in part the eagerness of the aliens themselves to get in be- 
fore the gates were closed, and in part the efforts of com- 
peting steamship lines to carry as much as possible of the 



limited immigrant business of the year. The latter seema 
to have been by far the more important factor, for it was 
inevitable that the alien steamship companies would try tc' 
do everything possible to nullify the law for selfish pur- 
poses. The President wrote on September 9, 1921, "1 
haven't any doubt in the world but the enforcement ol 
the immigration laws is working many a hardship." Dur-j 
ing these early months of adjustment to numerical restric- 
tions, both Congress and the ofiicials proved that theyj 
were not so inhumane as some would have us believe.; 
Congress passed resolutions granting relief in several cases. 
The last group admission in these excess cases occurred 
under a departmental order of December 23, 1921, known as 
the Christmas order, which saved upward of 1,000 immi- 
grants from immediate deportation. Following this a more 
rigid application of the law was inaugurated and a con- 
siderable number of aliens were rejected and deported, with ' 
the result that comparatively few excess-quota cases arose ■ 
during the latter months of the fiscal year. 

The administration of the quota law during its initial 
year developed many problems, and, especially during the 
first six months of its operation, greatly overtaxed the 
machinery of the service and particularly the facilities at 
Ellis Island, but on the other hand this per centum law. 
accomplished the purpose for which it was obviously en- 
acted with a degree of success which few anticipated, for 
according to a careful estimate it kept from our shores 
1,750,000 to 2,000,000 immigrants, few of whom we would 
have been prepared to receive and care for in a year of un- 
employment and readjustment. 

A glance at the foregoing table will clearly show that 
while the countries of southern and eastern Europe, in- 
cluding Asiatic Turkey and the new nations created out of 
Turkish territory since the World War, in the main ex- 
hausted, and in several instances exceeded, the quotas 
allotted to them, the opposite was true of nearly all of the 
countries of northern and western Europe, which, for the 
purpose of this discussion, include the British Islands, 


Scandinavia, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzer- 
land, and France. The status of these two areas, as well 
as that of all other countries which are within the scope 
of the quota law, is shown in the table which 

Table 2. — Immigration of Aliens Into the United States Under the Per 
Centum Limit Act of May 19, 1921, During the Fiscal Year 1921-22, 
BY Specified Areas 


Total num- 
ber admis- 
sible during 
fiscal year 

Number ad- 
mitted and 
charged to 
quota dur- 
ing the 
fiscal year 

Per cent 
of quota 

Northern and western Europe 




Southern and eastern Europe and 








This table needs little comment, but it is interesting to 
note that the older sources of immigration, in northern 
and western Europe, exhausted less than one-half of their 
quotas during the fiscal year, while on the other hand 
Russia was the only country of southern and eastern 
Europe for which any considerable part of a quota re- 
mained on June 30. In other words, the movement of the 
year from the older sources was apparently a perfectly 
normal one, although considerably smaller than it was prior 
to the World War, but it is impossible to say how many 
aliens would have come from southern and eastern Europe 
and Turkey had it not been for the limitation afforded by 
the per centum limit act. Reference to Table 1 will show 
that the large percentage of the excess admissions coming 
from "Other sources" is in the main due to the influx from 
"Other Asia," 528 being admitted from this source tempo- 
rarily and otherwise, whereas the total quota for the year 
was only 81. It may be explained that the excess in this 
instance was for the most part attributable to the coming 
of the groups of so-called Assyrian refugees, who were 


forced to take refuge in Mesopotamia after fleeing fron 
their homes in Persia during the war and who lated apphe( , 
for admission at various Atlantic and Pacific ports. 

When the quota law, which, as before stated, expiree 
V by limitation on June 30, 1922, was extended for two years 
certain changes which had occurred during the year necessi- 
tated some revision of the basic population of various coun i 
tries. Germany's quota was somewhat reduced and Po- 
land's correspondingly increased through the partition oi^ 
Upper Silesia. Separate quotas were established for areaj 
known as Esthonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Bessarabia, 
all of which territory was included with Russia in the 
quota allotment of 1921-22. A separate quota was giver 
to Russian Armenia, and Turkish Armenia and the Smyrna 
region were merged with Turkey. Iceland and the Meme] 
region, which were included with "Other Europe" were 
given separate quota allotments. The quotas of New Zea-jj 
land and Pacific Islands were merged and other minon 
changes made. 1 

The fiscal year ended June 30, 1923 was the second com-, 
plete year during which the quota limit act of May 19, 1921 
was in operation. The number of immigrants admitted 
reached a total of 522,919 during the year, compared to| 
309,556 such admissions in the fiscal year 1922, an increase 
of 213,363. This gain was almost entirely due to in- 
creased immigration from British North America and 
Mexico, which countries were and still are not within the 
scope of the quota provisions, and to the fact that natives 
of north and west European countries used 90 per cent 
of their allotted quotas in the year 1922-23, compared with 
only 46.4 per cent in the preceding fiscal year. During the 
year 1923 there were 335,480 aliens charged to the quota, 
leaving 187,439 to enter otherwise. Of the latter, 117,011; 
were admitted from Canada, 63,768 from Mexico, 13,181 
from the West Indies, and smaller numbers from other 
sources, only a minor part of such immigration being sub-i 
ject to the provisions of the quota law. 



The following table shows the operation of the quoU 
law during the two fiscal years ended June 30, 1922 anc 

Table 3. — Immigration Quotas Allotted to Specified Countries oqn 
Regions of Birth and the Number of Aliens Admitted and Chargb 
Against Such Quota Allotments, Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 195 
and 1923 

Country or region of birth 



Armenia (Russian) 





Danzig, Free City of 



Fiume, Free State of 










Poland (including Eastern Galicia) . . 

Portugal (including Azores and Madeira 


Russia (including Siberia) 

Esthonian region 

Latvian region 

Lithuanian and Memel regions 




United Kingdom 


Other Europe (including Andorra, Gib- 
raltar, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, 
and San Marino ; and Memel and 
Iceland for 1922) 



Turkey (European and Asiatic, includ 
ing Smyrna region ; and Turkish 
Armenian region for 1923) 

Other Asia (including Cyprus, Hedjaz, 
Iraq (Mesopotamia, Persia, Rhodes, 
and any other Asiatic territory not 
included in the barred zone. Persons 
born in Asiatic Russia are included 
in the Russia quota) 



New Zealand and Pacific Islands..., 

Atlantic islands (other than Azores) 
Canary Islands, Madeira, and islands 
adjacent to the American continents 
















• • • • 

• • ■ ■ 



• • 1 • 

-I n W A 



























OU i 

















77.. 5 




























■ ' ■ ' 





78 6 

* ■ ■ ■ 

42 057 


42 057 


1 fin n 








3 607 









































































































































Per cent of 
quota admitted 


; The real significance of the data shown in the foregoing 
ompilation will be more readily comprehended by a study 
f the following table in which are compared the quota 
Ilotments of, and the number of aliens admitted from, 
lorthern and western Europe; southern and Eastern 
Europe, including Asiatic Turkey and ''Other Asia," and 
iertain other sources subject to the quota law, during the 
wo fiscal years under consideration: 

?ABLE 4. — Immigration Quotas Allotted to SpEariED Areas, and the 
Number of Aliens Admitted and Charged Against Such Quota 
Allotments, Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1922 and 1923 




Per cent of 
quota admitted 


No. ad- 


No. ad- 



J^orthern and western 

Southern and eastern 
i Europe, including Asi- 
atic Turkey and other 

Africa, Australia, New 
Zealand and other Pa- 
cific islands, and At- 

















' The chief significance of the foregoing figures lies in the 
fact that while in the fiscal year 1922 only 46.4 per cent 
of the combined quotas of northern and western European 
countries were exhausted, 90 per cent of the total allot- 
ment was utilized in the fiscal year 1923, the increase in 
numbers being from 91,862 in 1921-22 to 177,943 in 1922-23. 
Table 3 shows that the quotas of the United Kingdom, 
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, and 
Switzerland were either completely or practically exhausted, 
the German quota being the only one of this group which 
reached the end of the fiscal year with any considerable 


balance. This was contrary to the arguments of the opp«j 
nents of the quota law, who, prior to this, contended thjj 
the immigrants from Northern and Western Europe woul 
not exhaust their quotas. 

On the other hand the quotas of the southern and easter ' 
European and Near East group were substantially e> 
hausted in both years, the small increase in 1922-23 beiii 
due to the fact that more favorable conditions surrounc | 
ing the immigration of natives of Russia made possible th ,1 
coming of increased numbers of that nationality. | 

Due to the fact that 20 per cent of a quota allotmei] 
could be admitted in any month, several of the national! 
ties concerned completely exhausted their quotas for th 
fiscal year 1923 in November. This experience amply justi 
fied the wisdom of fixing a monthly limit and indicated th 
necessity for making the monthly quota smaller. Fortu 
nately, however, for the Immigration Service some of th 
larger quotas were better distributed, not being exhaustei 
until April or May. New problems arose during the yea 
and already existing problems were in some cases intensifiec 
particularly that of preventing illegal entries over thi 
land boundaries and at seaports. However, restrictioi 
of immigration by means of a quota system had vindicate( 
itself by this time, and it was already evident that th' 
plan would be a good one if a proper basis for the quot; 
scheme could be worked out, together with amendment ; 
to eliminate certain administrative difficulties. 

With three exceptions the quotas of all countries am 
places included in the quota area were entirely exhaustec 
during the fiscal year 1923-24, the three referred to, witl 
the balance remaining in their respective quotas on Jun( 
30, being Esthonia 124; Free State of Fiume, 5; and Ice 
land, 32. The complete record of quota transactions during 
the three fiscal years 1922-24, is shown in the following 


Table 5. — Immigration Quotas Allotted to Specified Countries or Regions of Birth, 
AND TUB Number of Aliens Admitted and Charged Against Such Quota Allot- 
ments, Fiscal Years Ended Junb 30, 1922, 1923, and 1924 

Country or region of birth 


\rmenia (Russian) . . . 





Danzig, Free City of.. 




Fiume, Free State of. . 



(;itat Britain, Ireland. 

Hungary (including Sopron District). 

Ici land 


Lithuania (including Memel and part 
of Pinsk region) , 



Ncirwaj' , 

Poland (including Eastern Galicia and 
part of Pinsk region) 

Portugal (including Azores and Madeira 
Islands) , 


Russia, European and Asiatic (excluding 
barred zone) 

Spain (including Canary Islands) 




Other Europe (including Andorra, Gib- 
raltar, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, 
and San Marino) 



Turkey (European and Asiatic, includ- 
ing Smyrna region, and Turkish- 
Armenian region) 

Other Asia (including Cyprus, Hedjaz, 
Iraq (Mesopotamia), Persia, Rhodes, 
and any other Asiatic territory not 
included in the barred zone ; persons 
born in Asiatic Russia are included 
in the Russia quota) 

Africa (other than Egypt) 


Atlantic Islands (other than Azores, 
Canary Islands, Madeira, and islands 
adjacent to the American continents) 


New Zealand and Pacific islands 

Year ended June 
30, 1924 

























357,803 357,642 357,803 

Year ended June 
30, 1923 


























Year ended June 
30, 1922 





3", 921 












* Turkish and Russian Armenia for the year 1922. 

t Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania included with Russia for the year 1922. 
% Iceland included with other Europea for the year 1922. 



The next table shows the same information classifiedf' 
by specified groups of countries. 

Table 6. — Immigration Quotas Allotted to Specified Areas and the 
Number of Aliens Admitted and Charged Against Such Quota 
Allotments, Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1922, 1923 and 1924 






No. ad- 


No. ad- 


No. ad- 

Northern and western 

Southern and eastern 
Europe, including Asi- 
atic Turkey and other 

Africa, Australia, New 
Zealand and other Pa- 
cific islands, and Atlan- 













A total of 879,302 aliens were admitted to the United 
States during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1924, of which 
706,587 were immigrants and 172,715 were non-immigrants. 
Only 357,642 admissions were charged to the quota. In 
other words, 1^6 per cent more aliens were admitted outside 
the quota than were admitted under it. The 706,587 immi- 
grants admitted in the fiscal year 1924 were more than 
the intake of immigrants in any year up to 1882, and ex- 
ceeded in only 14 fiscal years of our history. Legal admis- 
sions from countries outside the quota law for 1923-24 are 
shown in the table below: 

Table 7. — Immigration from Nonquota Countries in the Fiscal Years 


Country of last permanent residence 






































The following table is given in order to compare the 
figures for the fiscal year 1924 with other years: 

Table 8. — Immigrant Aliens from Certain Countries and Areas in 
Specified Fiscal Years 









England, Scotland, and Wales. 

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark 
Other northern and western 




Other southern and eastern Eu- 

Turkey in Asia 


Grand total 














143 321 


7 709 


























With the exception of the rapid increase in immigration 
from Germany between 1921 and 1924, the record of the 
first group of countries presents no very unusual features. 
The number admitted from Germany in 1914 was not far 
from the annual average for 15 or 20 years prior to the 
war, but the fact that more than twice as many came in 
1924 suggests the probability that except for quota limita- 
tions a revival of the large German immigration of earlier 
years might have been expected. The number coming from 
Ireland during this period was considerably below pre- 
war figures and, unlike the countries of Great Britain and 
Scandinavia, it had not increased greatly since 1921. Al- 
though not shown separately in the table, it is of interest 
to note that in the year 1924 Scotland contributed 33,471 


immigrants, or more than one-half of all who came from 
the four British countries. In this connection it may be 
stated that prior to the war immigration from Scotland 
averaged about 14,000 annually. 

The figures in the second and third groups in the table' 
are clearly indicative of the radical effect brought about 
by the policy of restriction which began with the enact- 
ment of the quota limit law in May, 1921. The record of 
immigration in 1914 from the countries of south and east 
Europe and the Near East, although a little higher than 
the pre-war normal, are nevertheless fairly representative 
of that period. By 1921, as the table shows, there had 
been a remarkably quick revival, which followed an almost 
complete cessation of the movement from these sources 
during the war years, and, as pointed out in the annual 
reports of the Commissioner-General of Immigration, this 
revival gave every promise of an unprecedented deluge of 
immigration when peace was fully established and trans- 
portation facilities restored. It will be noted that in 1921 
the contribution of Italy, Greece, and Turkey began to 
approximate pre-war figures, and while Austria, Hungary, 
and Russia, formerly prolific sources of immigration, sent 
comparatively few in that year, a large part of the 244,004 
recorded as coming from other south and east Europe came 
from territory once belonging to those three countries. 
Then came the limitations imposed by the quota act and 
during the three years it was in force the total number ad- 
mitted from south and east Europe and Turkey was con- 
siderably below the partially revived immigration from the 
same sources in 1921, and less than one-half as great as 
the number who came in the single year 1914. 

In the case of both of the European groups under con- 
sideration the extent of possible immigration was limited 
by the quota act, and what the influx might have been 
except for that restraint can only be conjectured. It is safe 
to say, however, that it would have far exceeded that of 
any like period in our immigration history. Natives of 


Canada and Mexico, and persons born in other countries 
who had resided there for five years, were not subject to 
quota Hmitations, and these people simply came in un- 
precedented numbers to take advantage of opportunities 
which were closed or largely closed to European immigrants. 

Under the per centum limit act of 1921, 20 per cent of the 
quota of any country could be admitted in a single month. 
It was further provided that certain classes of aliens, not- 
ably members of the various professions and domestic 
servants, who were counted against quotas, could be ad- 
mitted without numerical limit when such quotas became 
exhausted. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1924, nearly 
all of the quotas, large and small, were filled before Janu- 
ary 1, with the result that during the remaining six months 
of the fiscal year considerable numbers were admitted under 
the exceptions referred to. 

'The number admitted in excess of quotas was also 
added t(5 by reason of court decisions, notably in the so- 
called Gottlieb case wherein United States Circuit Judge 
Mack ruled that the liberal exceptions found in the so-called 
'Asiatic barred zone' of the immigration act of 1917 were 
also applicable in the per centum limit law which was en- 
acted four years thereafter. Other Federal courts at New 
York and also at Boston not only followed the Gottlieb 
decision but even sought to enlarge the classes to which it 
applied. Under the circumstances the immigration ser- 
vice could not do otherwise than to admit applicants who 
came within the scope of these decisions until the Supreme 
Court of the United States, on May 26, 1924, declared that 
both the District Court and Circuit Court of Appeals were 
in error, and that exemptions covering a specific class of 
aliens mentioned in the act of 1917 could not be made to 
apply in the case of aliens who had been excluded under 
a subsequent law."^ Upward of 20,000 aliens w^ere admitted 
under the court decisions referred to, and in order to avoid 

* Annual Report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration for 1924, 
p 5. See also 285 Fed. 295 and infra, p. 179. 


their possible deportation, as a result of the Supreme Court 
decision, Congress provided that their residence in the 
United States might be legalized. 

Briefly stated, then, the increase of 183,977 admissions 
in the fiscal year 1924 over the preceding year was largely 
due to increased immigration from Canada, Mexico, and 
other nonquota countries; to admissions, under exceptions 
after quotas became exhausted, whith in the case of most 
countries occurred during the first six months of the fiscal 
year; to the fact that 22,162 more aliens were admitted 
and charged to quotas than in the previous year; and 
finally, to admissions under the court decisions above re- 
ferred to, which admissions were subsequently legalized 
by Congress. 

The net additions to the alien population of the United 
States resulting from the entire inward and outward alien 
movements during the three years under the 3 per cent 
quota law is of interest and value. The following table 
indicates these net additions: 

Table 9. — Net Additions to the Alien Population of the United States 
FOR the Fiscal Years 1922, 1923, 1924 

Fiscal Year 

Fiscal Year 

Fiscal Year 

Immigrant aliens 

Net addition to alien population . . 
















The important thing to note in the above table is the 
great proportionate increase in the net alien population 
for the fiscal years 1923 and 1924, which means that fewer 
emigrant aliens were leaving the country for permanent 
residence elsewhere. It would seem, therefore, that under 
the quota act immigration was becoming more and more 


permanent in character. One of the outstanding things 
shown by the above statistical record for the fiscal year 
1924, was that while the number of immigrant and non- 
immigrant aliens entering the country was more than 
200,000 greater than in the fiscal year inTmediately pre- 
ceding it, the increase of emigrant and nonemigrant aliens 
departing was only 16,159. 

The record of this inward and outward movement of 
aliens from 1908 to the present time is shown in the next 
table. A study of this table, condensed as it is, discloses 
several significant facts concerning the trend of immigra- 
^tion and emigration during the preceding 17 years, notably 
the unusual outward movement following the industrial 
depression of 1907-08; the relatively large emigration dur- 
ing the early years of the World War, which it is known, 
included many who went to join the colors of their re- 
spective countries; the sudden increase in both immigra- 
tion and emigration following the armistice; the sharp 
decline of immigration in 1922 resulting from the quota 
limit law, and, finally, the revival of immigration and the 
remarkable decline in emigration during the two fiscal 
years 1923 and 1924, also under the quota act. In the 
latter connection it is interesting to note that while the 
number of aliens of both classes admitted in the fiscal 
year 1924 was exceeded in 8 of the 17 years considered, 
the permanent addition to the alien population was 
numerically larger in 1923-24 than in any other year ex- 
cept 1910, 1913, and 1914. This, to all appearances, is 
substantial evidence of a greatly increased stability or 
permanence in immigration under the quasi-restrictive 
policy represented by the quota limit law, although, of 
course, it can not be said that the law is the only cause 
that contributed to that end. 

Disregarding the nonimmigrant and nonemigrant classes 
and considering immigrant and emigrant aliens only, which 
means those coming for permanent residence here or de- 
parting for permanent residence abroad, the record dis- 
closed by the table below is even more interesting and 




Ch cm 
H 05 

t>. CO 05 lO CO CO CD O 1— I 00 lO O 

'^^'^^'^ O 00 co^ CM^ Oi^ tq^ lO 

of Co" (m" oT O" >0 CO oo"" p" co"^ 

O rti T-H ^ O T-H CO lO (N "-H ,-H 05 

lO 00 IC^OOt^ rH (N 

00 (N 00 

(M 05 T-H 
00^ CO Tti^ 

^ O OO 
Tfi CO 


(N (M^ 05^ 00^ 00^ co^ (M^ (^^^ o_ 

OO" '-H CO" CO CO" CO'~ 00'~ 





>0 Q 

to 05 00 


r-H t>. t>. 

iq^ 1>-^ Tt^^ r-i »-H^ co„ 1>.^ l>.^ 

(m" (n co" o" o~ i-h" oo" cn oT 







CT) (N O 
CO (N (N 



(N CO CO CO r-H 

1-1 (N 

^ Tt< CO to 
CO 00 00 
O CO to !>. 

Tfi CO (N (N 

1— I CO to 

CO CO T-H 05 

00 (M O 05 
^ ^ to 00 


TtH Oi 00 !>. 
C<1 I 

totot>. Q to r>. r-i Ttt 00 r>. CO ^ CO 

05 CO CO O to (N 00 ^ Tfi to (M J>. 

C0„(N,O^ CO^rH^(N^O_(N^l^^OO^OO^O_to_^ 

TjT TtT 00 Q tCtC co" co" <N ^ 

(M rt" 05 « T-t (M O CO CO CO CO (M 

Oi 05 r-H O O CO CO (M (M CO 

to Oi !>. 

(N CO 

00 ^ 

COCOtOi— tTt^(M'?t<tOO^tO 
l>.^ Ol CO^ CO„ to^ Ol Tt<^ (M^ 00^ uo 

i-T 00 oT tjh" tC I - ^ to" 


O CO o 

!>. 00 
00 to 


tO^^t-H^OO T}H^t^^00^Tt^^CO^'-<,Ci, 

00"^ 00"^ h-" 00" co" 00" to" o" T-T o" 


CO to CO (M 

CO o o o 


oo'ci co'oT 

CO !>. !>. 
05 CO 00 

to Oil^ CO 

(M to rH OS 

(N to 05 00 
00 CO to !>. 






00 05 o 

S S 05 



r2 ^ (M CO Tt< 

05 01 01 05 


significant. This is especially true with reference to the 
record of the last five years of the period which follows: 


Immigrant Al 


Emigrant Aliens 

1920 .... 



1921 .... 



1922 .... 



1923 .... 



1924 .... 




1899 all aliens admitted into 

the United States 

have been classified by the Government under the head 
of "races or peoples," as well as by the country of origin, 
although for quota purposes, viz., since 1921, place of birth 
controls regardless of race. Thus, an Englishman is counted 
as such under the head of ''races or peoples" whether he 
comes from England, Canada, or China. The aliens ad- 
mitted from Turkey in Asia during the fiscal year 1923 
included only 158 persons of the Turkish race compared 
with 658 Armenians, 631 Syrians, 417 Hebrews, 179 Greeks, 
and 140 of various other races or peoples. Since what is 
true of Turkey in this case is also true in some degree of 
every other country from which immigrants come, such a 
classification has great value. The number of immigrant 
ahens of the various races or peoples admitted during 
the fiscal years 1914, 1921 and 1924 is shown in the follow- 
ing table: 

Table 11. — Immigrant Aliens Admitted to the United States During 
THE Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1914, 1921, and 1924, by Races or 

Fiscal year 

Race or People 











Bohemian and Moravian (Czech) 




Bulgarian, Serbian, and Montenegrin 








Croatian and Slovenian 








Dalmatian, Bosnian, and Herzegovinian 





Table 11. — Immigrant Aliens Admitted to the United States Durin(i 
THE Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1914, 1921, and 1924, by Races of 
Peoples. — (Continued.) 

Kace or People 

Fiscal year 



1913-14 ' 









51,746 ^ 



12305 1 



18 ,166 i 






45 381 « 






33398 ' 

























T>_,1 • U 
















Scandinavian (Norwegians, Danes, and 














Spanish American 


















Other peoples 








The next table shows the same data classified according 
to the races or peoples principally indigenous to specified 
parts of Europe and the Near East, together with Mexicans 
and all others, the latter including oriental peoples, Cubans, 
Spanish Americans, West Indians, and others. 


Table 12. — Immigrant Aliens Admitted by Principal Races or Peoples 
IN Fiscal Years Specified 

Race or people 

Number admitted 

Per cent of total 







Northern and west- 
ern Europe 

Southern and east- 
ern Europe and 




















This table brings out the interesting fact that the pro- 
, portion of northern and western European peoples in our 
immigration increased from 20.8 per cent of the whole in 
1913-14 to 55.7 per cent in the fiscal year 1924 and that 
the proportion of southern and eastern European peoples 
j decreased from 75.6 per cent of the whole in 1913-14 to only 
I 27.2 per cent in 1923-24. It will also be noted that as 
between the two years named there was a numerical in- 
crease of nearly 140,000 in the first group and a decrease 
' of 728,561 in the second. It is also interesting to note that 
immigrants of the Mexican race increased from an insignifi- 
cant proportion of the whole in 1913-14 to 12.4 per cent in 
the fiscal year, 1923-24, the numerical increase being from 
I 13,089 to 87,648, a number equal to about 45 per cent of the 
year's total immigration of southern and eastern European 
I peoples. The proportion of '^all others" also increased from 
j 2.5 per cent to 4.7 per cent between the two years under 
consideration, but there was a small numerical increase in 
this group. 

! Among the many changes that resulted from the opera- 
I tion of the per centum limit law was the steady and very 
1 considerable increase in the proportion of English-speak- 
'\ ing peoples among arriving aliens, as shown in the following 


Table 13. — Immigrant Auens of the English and Non-English Speak 
iNG Races Admitted, During the Fiscal Yrars Specified 

J? ibcdi year 
(ended June 30) 


H n rpl 1 o r» 

speaking * 


Per cent of total 

































* English, Irish, Scotch, and Welsh races. 

The immigration record of the fiscal year 1914 was fairly 
typical in many respects of like records for a generation I 
prior to the World War. In that year only 8.8 per cent 
of our immigration was of the four English speaking 
peoples — English, Irish, Scotch, and Welsh — and the total 
number admitted was only 107,199. In the fiscal year, 
1923-24, however, the number admitted was 200,265, nearlyi 
twice as great as in 1913-14, and they constituted 28.3 peri 
cent of the total immigration. In the same fiscal years, the 
number of non-English-speaking peoples decreased from 
1,111,281 to 506,631, and their proportion in the whole 
immigration fell from 91.2 to 71.7 per cent. Putting it in 
another way, in 1913-14 the number of non-English-speak- 
ing peoples admitted was more than 1,000,000 in excess of 
the peoples whose customary language was our own, but 
in 1923-24 this difference was reduced to about 300,000. 
From this it is evident that the emergency quota legisla- 
tion did much good and, therefore, justified the continua-l 
tion of a quota limitation. 

The facts set forth in this chapter will be of great in- 
terest to us when we consider the quota provisions in the 
Act of 1924, the purpose of which is to materially lessen the ; 
tide of immigration from the so-called '^new" sources, with- i 
out unduly interfering with the normal movement of north 
west European peoples into the United States. That the 
Act of May 19, 1921 accomplished this to some extent is evi- 
dent from the above facts, and from it came the solution to 
the quota problem as worked out in the Act of 1924. 

The Immigration Act of 1924 

President Coolidge's recommendations on Immigration — History of the 
fohnson Bill — Provisions of the new law — Non-immigrant classes — Non- 
g[Uota immigrants — The case for aliens now here without their immediate 
families — Alien wives of American citizens — Travel permits for aliens now 
here — Provisions concerning ministers, professors and students — The quota 
provisions — Preferences within the quotas — Provisions concerning immi- 
gration visas — Penal provisions — Provisions to check illegal entry of immi- 
grants as seamen — Burden of proof on the alien — This act is additional 
legislation on immigration — Sources of opposition. 

The numerical restrictions provided for in the 3 per cent 
Act of May 19, 1921 were drastic, yet the emergency de- 
manded drastic action. The law itself worked many hard- 
ships for it was not perfect. Indeed, it was never at any 
time considered permanent legislation. Its life was ex- 
tended for two years by the Act of May 11, 1922 for the 
sole purpose of giving Congress time to work out more 
permanent legislation. The quota law based on the census 
of 1910 was not based on historical facts, and, therefore, 
at best, was.^ajiiakeshift affair. However, a quota limita- 
tion had proved to be the most effective method of restrict- 
ing immigration yet devised and at no time was the aban- , 
donment of such a plan contemplated. It had done much ; 
good and within a short time we began to learn many 
lessons which were to be invaluable when the time came 
to write a law that would be numerically restrictive, selec- 
tive and based on historical facts. 

In his first annual message to Congress on December 
6, 1923 President Coolidge dealt with the immigration ques- 
tion in a constructive manner. He pointed Congress in 
the right direction when he stated that ''American institu- 



tions rest solely on good citizenship. They were created It 
by people who had a background of self-government. Newij ( 
arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them . 
into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept I 
American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue 
a policy of restricted immigration. It would be well to ' 
make such immigration of a selective nature with some 
inspection at the source, and based either on a prior census 
or upon the record of naturalization. Either method would 
insure the admission of those with the largest capacity and ,. 
best intention of becoming citizens. I am convinced that | 
our present economic and social conditions warrant a limita- 
tion of those to be admitted. We should find additional 
safety in a law requiring the immediate registration of all 
aliens. Those who do not want to be partakers of the ill 
American spirit ought not to settle in America." 

Since few subjects can stir more argument, more dif- 
ferences of opinion, than immigration, since nothing breeds 
so much trouble as racial differences, it was inevitable that 
the drafting of a bill that would carry out the principles 
of restricted immigration in a constructive manner as out- j 
lined by the President in his message would be full of diffi- 
culties. The House and Senate Committees on Immigra- 
tion and Naturalization had studied the problem during ; 
the two years of the Sixty-seventh Congress. The con- 
clusions of the House Committee were set forth in a report : 
to the House of Representatives on February 15, 1923.^ ' 
In the congestion of legislation nothing was done before '! 
Congress adjourned in March. The intervening months. ' 
to December, when Congress again assembled, gave an | 
opportunity for public opinion to crystallize and assert it- 

Before January 20, 1924, fifty proposals dealing with the j 
subject of immigration had been presented in Congress, 
and many others were introduced after that date, among 
which were twenty or more well-defined plans for restrict | 
tion. However, from the time Congress assembled until its 

* Report No. 1621, House of Representatives, 67th Congress, 4th seasion. 


ienactment into law the nation as a whole was concerned 
lonly with the Johnson bill, now known as the 'Immigration 
lAct of 1924." This measure was drafted by the House 
[Committee and contained its previous recommendations, 
tplus various perfecting amendments. Its principal features 
lare: (1) it preserves the basic immigration law of 1917; 
(2) it contains the principle of numerical limitation as in-_ 
augurated in the Act of May 19, 1921; (3) it changes the 
[quota basis from the census of 1910 to the census of 1890; 
(4) it reduces the quota admissible in any one year from 
3 to 2 per cent; (5) it provides a method of selection of 
immigrants at the source rather than to permit them to 
come to this country and land at the immigration stations 
without previous inspection; (6) it reduces the classes of 
exempted aliens; (7) it places the burden of proof on the 
alien to show that he is admissible under the immigration 
laws rather than upon the United States to show that he 
is not admissible; and (8) it provides for the exclusion 
of those who desire to enter as immigrants who are not 

I eligible to become naturalized citizens under our natural i 7a- 

|i tion laws. 

' The key to the law lies in an understanding of tho defini- 
V tion of immigrants. The Act of 1921 dealt with ihe defini- 
tion of aliens, whereas this new law deals with the defini- 
tion of 'immigrants. All persons who may come to the 
United States are considered immigrants except those who 
are exempted in the definition of immigrants. '"'When used 
in this Act the term 'immigrant' means any alien departing 
from any place outside the United States destined for the 
United States, except (1) a government official, his family, 
attendants, servants, and employees, (2) an alien visiting 
the United States temporarily as a tourist or temporarily 
for business or pleasure, (3) an alien in continuous transit 
through the United States, (4) an alien lawfully admitted 
to the United States who later goes in transit from one 
part of the United States to another through foreign con- 
tiguous territory, (5) a bona fide alien seaman serving as 
such on a vessel arriving at a port of the United States and 



seeking to enter temporarily the United States solely in 
pursuit of his calling as a seaman, and (6) an alien entitled 
to enter the United States solely to carry on trade under 
and in pursuance of the provisions of a present existing 
treaty of commerce and navigation." - While these ex- 
empted classes are composed of aliens they are not con- 
sidered immigrants, and therefore they are not within the 
scope of the new law. 

The law then divides all immigrants into two classes, 
quota immigrants and non-quota immigrants. Both classes 
are required to secure certificates, but only those in the 
quota class are counted to fill the quotas which are allotted 
to the various countries. 

Non-quota immigrants include,^ as stated in section 4: 
"(a) An immigrant who is the unmarried child under 
eighteen years of age, or the wife, of a citizen of the United 
States who resides therein at the time of the filing of the 
petition required under section 9; (b) an immigrant pre- 
\'i(.ii^l3' lawfully admitted to the United States, who is re- 
turning from a temporary visit abroad; (c) an immigrant 
ho was born in the Duiiunion of Canada, Newfoundland, 
the Repub]i(^ nf Mexico, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic 
of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the /Canal Zone, or an 

wife, and his unmarried children unucr eighiC.?*! years of> 
age, if accompanying or following to join hnu; (d) an iiT^.^ni- ; 
grant who continuously for at least two years iminediatt / 
preceding the time of application for admission to the 
United States has been, and who seeks to enter the United 

^Section 3 of the Act. 

^ The Act of May 26, 1926, relating to ahen veterans of the armed forces 
of the United States during the period of the World War is of wide appli- 
cation. Under it provision is made for the admission of such veterans not 
only without regard to the quota but also without regard to many of the 
general provisions of the law. In addition, their wives and minor children 
accompanying or following to join them within six months are exempted 
from the quota. According to the Commissioner-General of Immigration 
in his report for 1926 "there were in 1924 from 12,000 to 15,000 such veterans 
in Italy alone. It is believed that this number represents the largest group | 
in any one country. It will enable many expatriated naturalized American 
citizens to return, with the families they have acquired abroad, and will, 
no doubt, prove an important exception to the quota law" (page 21). 

independent country of Cen.. : ' 



States solely for the purpose of, carrying on the vocation 
of minister of any religious denomination, or professor of a 
college, academy, seminary, or university ; and his wife, and 
his unmarried children under eighteen years of age, if 
accompanying or following to join him; or (e) an immi- 
grant who is a bona fide student * at least fifteen years of 
age and who seeks to enter the United States solely for 
j the purpose of study at an accredited school, college, acad- 
emy, seminary, or university, particularly designated byv 
ihim and approved by the Secretary of Labor, which shall 
. have agreed to report to the Secretary of Labor the termina- 
, tion of attendance of each immigrant student, and if any 
such institution of learning fails to make such reports 
promptly the approval shall be withdrawn." ^ 

A brief study of this legislation makes it clear that the 
■! Act is filled with humane provisions.^ Under the Act of 
1921 a family might arrive at a port in the United States, 
only to find, as many did, that the quota provisions neces- 
sitated a family division. This led to many hardships and 
much criticism. It was a weakness that had to be elimi- 
nated. The Act of 1924 does this by encouraging an immi- 

I *In his report for 1925 the Commissioner-General of Immigration recom- 
mended that "authority should be included in Section 15 of the act for the 
imposition of a bond to guarantee the maintenance of the exempt status 

; of an immigrant student, where the applicant is not believed to be seeking 
admission in good faith, under Section 4 (e). As the matter now stands, 
the bureau finds itself compelled to refuse admission to many aliens apply- 
ing as immigrant students, whom it could properly admit as such if 
authority were expressly conferred to exact bonds for the maintenance of 
student status" (page 28). He repeated this recommendation in his 1926 
report (page 23). The defect not having been foreseen, obviously should 
be remedied. 

®In United States of America, ex rel. Guide Antonini, v. Henry H. Cur- 
ran, Commissioner of Immigration of the Port of New York, Circuit 
Court of Appeals, Second Circuit; (see United States Daily for November 
29, 1926) the court held that an Italian student who had been admitted 
to college and was a bona fide student could not be held subject to exclu- 
sion or deportation as an alien on the ground that during his studies he 
gained his maintenance and tuition by self-supporting labor. In Low Cho 
Oy, Appellant, v. John D. Nagle, Commissioner of Immigration for the 
Port of San Francisco; Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 4941, 
it was held that the admission of a Chinese as a student gave him the 
I rifeht to bring his wife with him. United States Daily, December 4, 1926. 

*In his report for 1925 (page 1) the Commissioner-General of Immigra- 
tion refers to the immigration act of 1924 as a "law with a heart." 


grant to bring his family with him. Under the plan for the 
issuance of immigration visas an immigrant can learn be- 
fore leaving his home if all his family and the relatives 
who desire to accompany him can enter the United States 
with him within the quotaJ 

The opponents of the bill tried, but in vain, to amend it 
so as to permit all children, parents, and other relatives 
to enter as non-quota immigrants. The advocates of re- 
striction contended that their purpose was to load the law 
down with so many '^humane" provisions as to destroy the 
quota provisions indirectly and altogether. Thus, it was 
argued, they would have accomplished indirectly what 
they failed to do directly. 

In one particular, however, the law may be said to 
create a serious hardship, although to what extent it is 
difficult to say. Under the bill as first drafted in the report 
of February 15, 1923, an alien already here, who had taken 
out his first papers and intended to become fully natural- 
ized, could bring in his wife and minor children as non- 
quota immigrants. Under the law as finally enacted, he 
cannot do so, and, therefore, they must enter as quota immi- 
grants, if they get here. Investigations showed that many 
ahens now here could and should have brought their families 

'In his annual report for 1926 the Secretary of Labor recommended to 
Congress that a provision be added to the immigration laws requiring an 
alien head of family seeking visa for permanent residence in the United 
States to express intention regarding the future residence of the family, 
and in the event that he expects later to have the family join him in the 
United States, each member of the family would be required to submit to 
preliminary examination to determine admissibility and to have visas 
issued at the same time that his own arrangements are made. Should 
dependent members of that family be found inadmissible, the entire family 
would then be fully cognizant of the fact that such members could never 
be admitted to the United States, 

Since the life of an immigrant visa is now limited to four months, Sec- 
retary Davis also recommended that authority be vested in an adminis- 
trative officer to extend the validity of immigration visas so issued to 
members of families whose heads are in the United States for a reason- 
able length of time. It tiu- life of a ''family" visa were made one year, 
and some arrangement perfected whereby it could be extended upon ap- 
propriate showing of cause, the separation of families through immigration 
of the future could be practically eliminated. The visas thus issued would, 
of course, carry the quota allotn.ents in like manner as now provided by 
law. Pages 110-111. 


With them, although some came here to work and save 
3nough to send for them later. While Congress foresaw 
to some extent the situation which has resulted for immi- 
grants now here without their families, yet it feared a loop- 
hole might result that would let in too many immigrants. 
However, as everything is to be gained and nothing lost 
from a united family life. Congress may reconsider and 
permit aliens now in the United States to bring in their 
wives and minor children as non-quota immigrants.^ The 
present state of public opinion would seem to justify such 
a change in the law. However, it would be necessary to 
put a time limit when such preferences would have to 

On November 8, 1924 Secretary of Labor Davis ex- 
pressed his opinion on this point as follows : ^'I would pro- 
vide for preference in admission to this country for the 
families of aliens already in the United States. Humanity 
i demands that our immigration law shall not operate to 
keep husband and wife, brothers and sisters, or parents 
and children apart wherever it is possible to bring them to- 
gether. There is an economic reason, too, for uniting the 
families of immigrants. For, if the alien is unable to bring 
' his family to his new country, he is forced to support it 
abroad with the wages he earns in America. If he is 
enabled to bring them here, the buying power of his Ameri- 
can wages goes to help American business." ^ 

In his annual message to Congress, December 3, 1924 
President Coolidge stated: ''I should like to see the ad- 
ministrative features of this (the immigration) law rendered 
a little more humane for the purpose of permitting those 
already here a greater latitude in securing admission of 
members of their own families. But I believe this law in 
principle is necessary and sound and destined to increase 

'Important debates on the admission of relatives of aliens now in the 
United States took place in the Senate on December 14, 1926, and in the 
House, Januaiy 25, 1927. For the full text of these debates see Con- 
gressional Record, 69th Congress, 2d Session, pages 407-414 and 2281 to 

j "In his annual report for 1926 (page 110) the Secretary of Labor repeated 
I these recommendations. 



greatly the public welfare. We must maintain our own I 
economic position, we must defend our own national ! 

In his report for 1925 the Commissioner-General of Im- 1 
migration stated: ''It is my recommendation that 'non- i 
quota immigrant' status should be extended to the parents \ 
of citizens, and further that the age limit for granting non- 
quota visas to the unmarried children of citizens should be | 
raised from 18 to 21 years, thus eliminating two preference | 
classes — the parents and the unmarried children, between \ 
the ages of 18 and 21 years, of citizens of the United States ! 
— and placing these two classes among the non-quota j 
classes. This will expedite the admission of parents and 
children of American citizens and the bureau sees no reason ■ 
why we should delay what is so clearly an act of mercy."^^ 
He repeated virtually the same recommendation in his ■ 
report for 1926.1^ ' 

By the Act of September 22, 1922, it was provided, 'That 
any woman who marries a citizen of the United States after I 
the passage of this act, or any woman whose husband is 
naturalized after the passage of this act, shall not become 
a citizen of the United States by reason of such marriage : 
or naturalization; but, if eligible to citizenship, she may i 
be naturalized upon full and complete compliance with all 
the requirements of the naturalization laws, with the fol- 
lowing exceptions: ' 

(a) No declaration of intention shall be required. 

(b) In lieu of the five-year period of residence within 
the State or Territory where the n'aturalization court is 
held, she shall have resided continuously within the United (j 
States, Hawaii, Alaska, or Porto Rico, for at least one year j 
immediately preceding the filing of the petition." This I 
simply means that when an alien girl marries an American 
citizen she docs not by that marriage ceremony become an 
American citizen. Up to the time of this act she ipso facto ' 
became an American citizen and could come in as such. 

""Page 28. 

"Page 23. 


Since the passage of the Act of September 22, 1922, we have 
had cases where wives of American citizens, seeking admis- 
sion into the United States, could not come in because the 
quota of their nationality was filled. Under the Act of 
1924 such wives of American citizens may enter as non- 
quota imimigrants.^- This is a humane provision despite the 
fact that frequently a delay of at least three months is 
necessary to secure the proper papers to admit her as a 
non-quota immigrant. 

Another humane provision is the one which permits an 
alien now in this country to go out on a temporary visit 
and return exempt from the quota provisions. Let us 
assume that the immigrant has taken out his first papers 
and has foresworn allegiance to his mother country. He 
has not taken on complete allegiance to the United States. 
In that event he cannot get a passport from us to the coun- 
try from which he came nor can be get a passport from the 
country he left. The new law provides that he be given a 
kind of travel permit which simply shows that he travels 
with the intention of returning to the United States. How- 
ever, it does not relieve him from being debarred on his 
return if he has contracted any disease or subjected himself 
to deportation under the Burnett Law.^^ This provision, 
enacted for the benefit of aliens now in the United States, 
permits them to return to their native land, yet it prohibits 

"In his report for 1925 the Commissioner-General of Immigration recom- 
mended that "Section 4(a) of the act should be amended to provide that 
a v' f who is an American citizen, and resides in the United States, may 
petition for the issuance of a non-quota immigration v^isa to her alien 
husband. As it now stands, the law permits such a citizen wife to petition 
only for preference for her husband. This subdivision of Section 4 should 
also be amended to provide that either a husband or wife who is a citizen 
of the United States may petition for the issuance of non-quota immigra- 
tion visas to the children of either alien spouse" (page 28). He repeated 
virtually the same recommendations in his report for 1926 (page 23). 

"In his report for 1926 the Commissioner-General of Immigration stated: 
"A permit to reenter the United States, once issued to an alien resident, 
j-'hould be made prima facie evidence of his right to return, barring fraud 
or disease. To give an alien a permit to reenter, which he has a right 
to believe entitled him to readmission, and then to bar him because of 
some requirement, which he has previously met and passed, is an injustice 
of which no government should be guilty" (page 22). 


additional ones from coming except under the quota. It 
will be of most benefit to the aliens now here from Southern 
Europe, the so-called new immigration, for these are the 
ones who for the most part desire to return home to visit 
their families and friends. Experience should prove this 
to be a beneficial provision instead of a loophole as feared j 
by some. If properly enforced it will prove the former, 
otherwise the latter. 

Concerning this permit to enter the United States after 
a temporary absence, Section 10 states: 

"(a) Any alien about to depart temporarily from the 
United States may make application to the Commissioner- 
General for a permit to reenter the United States, stating 
the length of his intended absence, and the reasons there- 
for. Such application shall be made under oath . . . and 
shall be accompanied by two copies of the applicant's 

(b) If the Commissioner-General finds that the alien 
has been legally admitted to the United States, and that 
the application is made in good faith, he shall, with the 
approval of the Secretary of Labor, issue the permit, speci- 
fying therein the length of time, not exceeding one year, 
during which it shall be valid. The permit shall be in 
such form as shall be by regulations prescribed and shall 

"During the fiscal year 1926 alien residents of the United States made 
119,254 applications for permits to reenter this country after a temporary 
visit abroad, which was an increase of 29,254 over the preceding year. Of 
the 119,254 applications received, 104,666 return permits were issued and 
6,636 were refused, the refusals being mainly for failure on the part of the 
applicant to establish legal entry into the United States. 4,034 extensions 
were granted on permits already issued. Report of Commissioner-General 
of Immigration, page 11. 

"In Francesco Lidennici, Severio Desiderio, Giovanni Candioti and 
Nicolo Finaro v. James J. Davis, Secretary of Labor, and W. W. Husband, 
Commissioner of Immigration; Court of Appeals, District of Columbia; 
No. 4405; United States Daily, December 13, 1926, the court held that the 
above Italians, returning after six months, were aliens who had entered 
without right and in violation of the immigration statutes. The order of 
deportation was affirmed. The complainants alleged that it was their 
intention on departing from the United States to return to it, although 
Lidennici had been in Italy about three years; Desiderio, about three 
years; Condioti, about nine years and Finaro, about eight years. Fur- 
thermore, their re-entry was not made at a specified port. 


have permanently attached thereto the photograph of the 
alien to whom issued, together with such other matter as 
may be deemed necessary for the complete identification 
of the alien. 

(c) On good cause shown the validity of the permit may 
be extended for such period or periods, not exceeding six 
months each, and under such conditions, as shall be by 
regulations prescribed. 

(d) For the issuance of the permit, and for each exten- 
sion thereof, there shall be paid a fee of $3.^^ 

(e) Upon the return of the alien to the United States 
the permit shall be surrendered to the immigration officer 
at the port of inspection. 

(f) A permit issued under this section shall have no 
effect under the immigration laws, except to show that the 
alien to whom it is issued is returning from a temporary 
visit abroad; but nothing in this section shall be construed 
as making such permit the exclusive means of establishing 
that the alien is so returning." 

Section 4 (d) grew out of a long contested case, decided 
May 26, 1924, by the Supreme Court of the United States, 
which decision fixed the construction of the immigration 
acts of 1917 and 1921, in respect to the admissibility of 
the wives and minor children of admitted immigrants. 
. Gittel and Israel Gottlieb were the wife and four-year-old 
child, respectively, of Solomon Gottlieb. Solomon Gottlieb 
was a Jewish rabbi who came from Palestine to the United 
States some 14 months before his wife and child came. 
He was duly admitted and, procuring a position, furnished 
support to his family until able to send passage money. 

"For the fiscal year 1926 the sum of $326,100 was turned over to the 
disbursing office of the department for transmission to the Treasury. Re- 
port of the Commissioner-General of Immigration for 1926, pag€ 11. 

"In John P. Johnson, U. S. Commissioner of Immigration, v. Cornelius 
F. Keating, ex rel. Francesco Tarantino; Circuit Court of Appeals, First 
Circuit (see United States Daily for January 15, 1927, page 7) the court 
held that the reentry permit or immigration visa is not essential evidence 
of the real status of a non-quota immigrant returning from a temporary 
absence abroad. The exclusion of Tarantino on the sole ground that he had 
no return permit or immigration visa was held to be unjust and unrea- 
sonable, the equity of the case being undisputed. 



On their arrival they were excluded because the quota ^ 
from Palestine was full. On a writ of habeas corpus in the ' 
District Court of New York admission was ordered, where- 
upon an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals. 
Judge Rogers went carefully into the case, examining the 
effect of the quota law of 1921 on the basic law of 1917. 
The 1917 act provides that ministers and religious teachers 
and their legal wives and children under 16 are not subject 
to the exclusion clause of that act; this act not having been 
repealed by the act of 1921, an effort must be made to con- 
strue the limitations of the latter act so as not to do vio- 
lence to the act of 1917. Rules for the construction of 
statutes were discussed, one of which was that absurd 
results should be avoided if possible. The conclusion was 
reached that Congress intended nothing by the act of 1921 
that would '^create a condition so unreasonable and absurd 
as to admit a minister while at the same time excluding the 
members of his family." The order of the court directing 
the release of the wife and child was therefore affirmed-^^ 

KThis decision was made a precedent in a number of cases 
involving similar and related conditions; but the Depart- 
ment of Labor was not satisfied with the ruling as a final 
determination and prosecuted an appeal to the Supreme 
Court. Here it was conceded that the laws of 1917 and 
1921 should be held as complemental, the provisions of the 
earlier act being ''still fully operative and may be consid- 
ered as forming a part of the later act." However, the 
framing of the law was said to be so definite as not to 
permit construction. The case was concededly ''one of 
peculiar and distressing hardships," so that if a favorable 
conclusion were possible it would naturally be made use 
of; but an examination of the exceptions and qualifications 
made it impossible to extend leniency to the case in hand, 
the limited scope of the exception relied upon "being plain, 
and no amount of discussion could make it plainer." The 
limitation being what it was, any claim that it would be 
"absurd and unreasonable" to bar wives and children of 

^285 Fed. 295. Soc also supra, p. 161. 


admitted persons could not have weight, ''since the result 
we have stated necessarily follows from the plain words of 
the law, for which we are not at liberty to substitute a 
rule based upon other notions of policy or justice." 
If This decision clearly upheld the construction of law given 
' it by the Department of Labor in its original finding, and 
exposed to the possibility of deportation a considerable 
i number of admitted persons, wives and children of immi- 
11 grants residing in this country, who had been admitted 
■ in obedience to the ruling of the courts below, but under 
• notice that an appeal had been taken. However, Congress 
f in its closing session on June 7, provided for the continued 
i residence in this country of such persons, ''approximately 
i ; 8,800 aliens who are now here and about 500 who are on 
j the ocean." A resolution (H. J. Res. 283) lifting the ban 
I against certain groups of such persons specified those here- 
tofore admitted under a construction of the act of 1921 
"required by court decision." This resolution was signed 
by the President on the same day. Under the act of 1924, 
the wife and unmarried children under eighteen years of 
age of a minister, or a professor of a college, etc., who seeks 
to enter the United States solely for the purpose of carry- 
ing on his vocation, provided he has pursued the same con- 
tinuously for two years immediately preceding the time 
of his application for admission, may accompany him or 
follow to join him later .'^^ The law is now so specific con- 
cerning the admittance of wives and children of non-quota 
immigrants that it is difiicult to foresee how many problems 
can arise under it. 

The basis and heart of the new law are those provisions 
concerning quota immigrants. Section 5 states, "when used 
in this Act the term 'quota immigrant' means any immi- 
grant who is not a non-quota immigrant. An alien who is 

"The act of July 3, 1926, pertj^ining to the wives and children of min- 
isters and professors who entered the United States before July 1, 1924, 
added to the classes exempt from the quota. Under it, for a period of 
one year, this class of immigrants may be admitted upon showing that 
the husband and father entered in pursuit of the exempt vocation. This^^ 
was in accord with the recommendation of the Commissioner-General of 
Immigration in his report for 1925. 


not particularly specified in this Act as a non-quota immi 
grant or a non-immigrant shall not be admitted as a non ' 
quota immigrant or a non-immigrant by reason of rela ' 
tionship to any individual who is so specified or by reasor 
of being excepted from the operation of any other law 
regulating or forbidding immigration." 

Section G provides for certain preferences within the 
quotas, that is, in the issuance of immigration visas tc 
immigrants it is the duty of consuls to give preferences 
when necessar}^ to the following classes: 

'^(1) To a quota immigrant who is the unmarried child 
under 21 years of age, the father, the mother, the husband, 
or the wife, of a citizen of the United States who is 21 
years of age or over, and 

^'(2) To a quota immigrant who is skilled in agricul- 
ture, and his wife, and his dependent children under the 
age of 16 years, if accompanying or following to join him. 
The preference provided in this paragraph shall not apply 
to immigrants of any nationality the annual quota for 
which is less than 300." 

However, these preferences shall not in the case of quo 
immigrants of any nationality exceed 50 per centum of thej 
annual quota for such nationality, while no priority inj 
preference is to be granted to the class of immigrants speci-' 
fied in paragraph (1) over the class specified in paragraph 
(2). In case of quota immigrants of any nationality the 
preference provided in this section shall be given in the 
calendar month in which the right to preference is estab- 
lished, if the number of immigration visas which may be 
issued in such month to quota immigrants of such nation- 1 
ality has not already been issued; otherwise in the next; 
calendar month. 

As we have noted, the Act of 1921 admitted from any; 
one country 3 per cent of the number of persons born in; 
that country who were resident in the United States as| 
determined by the census of 1910. The total quota wasi 
357,803. The Act of 1924 provides in section 11 that ^The 
annual quota of any nationality shall be two per centum 


li' ' 

of the number of foreign born individuals of such nation- 
ality resident in continental United States as deter- 
mined by the United States census of 1890, but the 
painimum quota of any nationality shall be 100." On 
Ifchis basis the total annual quota for 1925 and 1926 was 

This quota plan was to stand for three years, after which 
the following quota plan was supposed' to go into effect: 

'The annual quota of any nationality for the fiscal year 
beginning July 1, 1927, and for each fiscal year thereafter, 
shall be a number which bears the same ratio to 150,000 
^as the number of inhabitants in continental United States 
in 1920 having that national origin (ascertained as here- 
inafter provided in this section) bears to the number of 
inhabitants in continental United States in 1920, but the 
minimum quota of any nationality shall be 100." 

Provisions for working out this plan are carried in para- 
I graphs (c), (d), and (e) of section 11, including a provision 
for putting this plan into operation by proclamation of the 
President, under certain conditions. Broadly speaking, 
the original effect of section 11 was that for three years the 
J quota shall be based on a percentage of the foreign-born in 
the United States in 1890, and thereafter the quota per- 
, centage was to be based upon the whole white population of 
. the United States, with due regard to the national origin of 
i that population. Section 12 provides for the working out 
of the quotas based on the census of 1890. We shall discuss 
these quota provisions fully in the next chapter, their 
importance justifying such separate study.^^ 

^ 145,971 immigrants in 1925 and 157,432 immigrants in 1926 were ad- 
mitted under the quota provisions. Report of the Commissioner-Gen- 
eral of Immigration for 1926, page 6. 

^On February 1, l'927, the Senate, without a record vote, adopted Senate 
Joint Resolution No. 152, introduced by Senator Johnson of California, 
which would postpone the effective date of the National Origins clause 
from April 1, 1927 to April 1, 1928. The House Committee amended this 
resolution to provide for the entire repeal of the national origins provi- 
sions. It reported the resolution, thus amended, favorably to the House 
on February 8, 1927. On March 3 the House passed the Senate resolution 
without amendment. The Pre.sident approved it March 4, 1927. PuJ^Iio 
Resolution No. 69. 



While further restricting immigration in a practice 
manner, another important purpose of the new law, as w< 
have seen already, is to reduce hardships to the absolutt 
minimum, to avoid the division of families, to save th( 
nationals of other countries the expense, perils and hard! 
ships of the ocean trip to the United States, only to fino 
that for any one of various reasons the immigrant or somf< 
member of his family may not enter. One of the most con- 
structive provisions of the new law designed to reduce 
such hardships, as well as to better control the tide of immi- 
gration, is the one which provides for a form of examinatior 
overseas. Until several years ago such a provision waf 
deemed impractical and impossible. Yet such a plan hac; 
the approval of virtually all thoughtful students of the 
problems of immigration. It is the nearest approach to 
the examination of immigrants overseas, recommended hy 
Presidents Harding and Coolidge and so many others, that 
the United States may safely adopt unless we are willing 
that medical, physical and mental examinations made in 
other lands shall be final, and that the making of such 
examinations shall be a subject of treaty regulations. 

The recommendations of President Harding, in his mes^ 
sage at the opening of the fourth session of the Sixtyn 
seventh Congress, in regard to this subject, were as follows: 
'^We had better provide registration for aliens, those now 
here or continually pressing for admission, and establish 
our examination boards abroad, to make sure of desirables 
only. By the examination abroad we could end the pathos 
at our own ports, when men and women find our doors 
closed, after long voyages and wasted savings, because they 
are unfit for admission. It would be kindlier and safer td 
tell them before they embark." 

The certificate plan of control, designated in the act asi 
'^immigration visas," was built up from suggestions of I 
former Commissioner-Generals -Caminetti and Husband,; 
Secretary of Labor Davis and others. The plan, as workedf 
out, is provided for in the law as follows: 


"Sec. 2 (a) A consular officer upon the application of 
my immigrant may (under the conditions hereinafter pre- 
scribed and subject to the limitations prescribed in the act 
)r regulations made thereunder as to the number of immi- 
p-ation visas which may be issued by such officer) issue to 
luch immigrant an immigration visa which shall consist 
)f one copy of the application provided for in section 7, 
irisaed by such consular officer. Such visa shall specify 
11) the nationality of the immigrant; (2) whether he is a 
:iuota immigrant or a non-quota immigrant; (3) the date 
m which the validity of the immigration visa shall expire ; 
and (4) such additional information necessary to the proper 
enforcement of the immigration laws and the naturalization 
laws as may be by regulations prescribed. 

"(b) The immigrant shall furnish two copies of his 
photograph to the consular officer. One copy shall be per- 
pfianently attached by the consular officer to the immigra- 
tion visa. . . . 

"(c) The validity of an immigration visa shall expire at 
the end of such period, specified in the immigration visa, 
pot exceeding four months, as shall be by regulations pre- 
Bcribed. ... if the vessel, before the expiration of the 
validity of his immigration visa, departed from the last 
port outside the United States and outside foreign con- 
tiguous territory at which the immigrant embarked, and if 
!the immigrant proceeds on a continuous voyage to the 
lUnited States, then, regardless of the time of his arrival 
jin the United States, the validity of his immigration visa 
shall not be considered to have expired. 

"(e) The manifest or list of passengers required by the 
immigration laws shall contain a place for entering thereon 
the date, place of issuance, and the number of the immi- 
gration visa of each immigrant. The immigrant shall sur- 
render his immigration visa to the officer at the port of 
1 inspection, who shall at the time of inspection indorse on 
the immigration visa the date, the port of entry, and the 
name of the vessel, if any, on which the immigrant arrived. 


The immigration visa shall be transmitted forthwith . . 
to the Department of Labor. 

''(f) No immigration visa shall be issued to an immi 
grant if it appears to the consular officer, from statement! 
in the application, or in the papers submitted therewith 
that the immigrant is inadmissible to the United States 
under the immigration laws, nor shall such immigratior 
visa be issued if the consular officer knows or has reason tc 
believe that the immigrant is inadmissible to the UniteQ 
States under the immigration laws. 

''(g) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to entitle 
immigrant, to whom an immigration visa has been issued 
to enter the United States, if, upon arrival in the Unit 
States, he is found to be inadmissible to the United Stated 
under the immigration laws. The substance of this sub- 
division shall be printed conspicuously upon every immi- 
gration visa. 

"(h) A fee of $9 shall be charged for the issuance of each 
immigration visa. . . 

Section 7 deals with the application for the immigration 
visa. It provides as follows: 

"(a) Every immigrant applying for an immigration visa 
shall make application therefor in duplicate in such formi 
as shall be by regulations prescribed. 

"(b) In the application the immigrant shall state (1) 
the immigrant's full and true name; age, sex, and race; the 
date and place of birth; places of residence for the five 
years immediately preceding his application ; whether mar- 
ried or single, and the names and places of residence of 
wife or husband and minor children, if any; calling or occu- , 
pation; personal description (including height, complexion, 
color of hair and eyes, and marks of identification) ; ability 
to speak, read, and write; names and addresses of parents,) 
and if neither parent living, then the name and addressi 
of his nearest relative in the country from which he comes; 
port of entry into the United States; final destination, if 


lany, beyond the port of entry; whether he has a ticket 
(through to such final destination; whether going to join a 
relative or friend, and, if so, what relative or friend and his 
complete name and address; the purpose for which he is 
going to the United States; the length of time he intends 
ito remain in the United States ; whether or not he intends 
|to abide permanently in the United States; whether ever 
in prison or alsmhouse ; whether he or either of his parents 
has ever been in an institution or hospital for the care and 
treatment of the insane; (2) if he claims to be a non-quota 
immigrant, the facts on which he bases such claims; and 
(3) such additional information necessary to the proper 
enforcement of the immigration laws and the naturalization 
laws, as may be by regulations prescribed. 

''(c) The immigrant shall furnish, if available, to the 
consular officer, with his application, two copies of his 
'dossier' and prison record and military record, two certified 
copies of his birth certificate, and two copies of all other 
available public records concerning him kept by the Gov- 
ernment to which he owes allegiance. One copy of the 
documents so furnished shall be permanently attached to 
each copy of the application and become a part thereof. . . . 

''(d) In the application the immigrant shall also state 
whether or not he is a member of each class of individuals 
: excluded from admission into the United States under the 
immigration laws, and such classes shall be stated on the 
I blank in such form as shall be by regulations prescribed, 
and the immigrant shall answer separately as to each class. 

"(e) If the immigrant is unable to state that he does not 
come within any of the excluded classes, but claims to be 
ifor any legal reason exempt from exclusion, he shall state 
fully in the application the grounds for such alleged ex- 

"(f) Each copy of the application shall be signed by the 
immigrant in the presence of the consular officer and veri- 
fied by the oath of the immigrant administered by the con- 
sular officer. . . . 

■ "(g) In the case of an immigrant under eighteen years 


of age the application may be made and verified by sucl:| 
individual as shall be by regulations prescribed. 1 
*'(h) A fee of $1 shall be charged for the furnishing am' 
verification of each application." i 

Concerning the issuance of immigration visas to relative; ^ 
Section 9 states: ''(b) Any citizen of the United Statefi 
claiming that any immigrant is his relative, and that sucB| ^' 
immigrant is properly admissible to the United States as i\ 
non-quota immigrant under the provisions of sub-divisiori 
(a) of section 4 or is entitled to preference under sectioB; 
6, may file with the Commissioner- General a petition in| If 
such form as may be by regulations prescribed, stating 
the petitioner's name and address; (2) if a citizen by birth | 
the date and place of his birth; (3) if a naturalized citizens! 
the date and place of his admission to citizenship and the! 
number of his certificate, if any; (4) the name and address! 
of his employer or the address of his place of business or^ 
occupation if he is not an employee; (5) the degree of the 
relationship of the immigrant for whom such petition ig 
made, and the names of all the places where such immigranti| 
has resided prior to and at the time when the petition isjj ^ 
filed; (6) that the petitioner is able to and will support th0 
immigrant if necessary to prevent such immigrant fromj ^ 
becoming a public charge; and (7) such additional infor- ^ 
mation ... as may be by regulations prescribed.^^ | 

''(c) The petition shall be made under oath. , . . Appli- 
cation may be made in the same petition for admission of|l 
more than one individual. 

"(d) The petition shall be accompanied by the state- i f' 
ments of two or more responsible citizens of the Unitedt 
States, to whom the petitioner has been personally knowni 
for at least one year, that to the best of their knowledge! ^1 

^During the fiscal year 1925 approximately 29,000 petitions from citizens! f'' 
were received, of which 25,002 were approved and 3,900 rejected. Theii III 
petitions approved covered approximately 50,000 aliens. Report of the ' 
Commissioner-General of Immigration for 1925, page 10. In 1926 the 
number of petitions was 23,856, of which 18,659 were approved andi, 
approximately 2,000 rejected. The petitions approved covered about jj ^ 
30,000 aliens. Report for 1926, page 12. il ^ 


and belief the statements made in the petition are true and 
that the petitioner is a responsible individual able to sup- 
port the immigrant or immigrants for whose admission 
application is made. 

''(e) If the Commissioner-General finds the facts stated 
in the petition to be true, and that the immigrant in respect 
of whom the petition is made is entitled to be admitted to 
the United States as a non-quota immigrant ... he shall, 
with the approval of the Secretary of Labor, inform the 
Secretary of State of his decision, and the Secretary of State 
shall then authorize the consular officer with whom the 
application for the immigration visa has been filed to issue 
the immigration visa or grant the preference. 

"(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to entitle 
an immigrant, in respect of whom a petition under this sec- 
tion is granted, to enter the United States as a non-quota 
immigrant, if, upon arrival in the United States, he is found 
not to be a non-quota immigrant." 

Two paragraphs in Section 11 contain provisions con- 
cerning visas. They are as follows: 

''(f) There shall be issued to quota immigrants of any 
nationality (1) no more immigration visas in any fiscal 
year than the quota for such nationality, and (2) in any 
calendar month of any fiscal year no more immigration 
visas than 10 per centum of the quota for such nationality, 
except that if such quota is less than 300 the number to be 
issued in any calendar month shall be prescribed by the 
Commissioner-General, with the approval of the Secretary 
of Labor, but the total number to be issued during the fiscal 
year shall not be in excess of the quota for such nationality. 

"(g) Nothing in this Act shall prevent the issuance 
(without increasing the total number of immigration visas 
which may be issued) of an immigration visa to an immi- 
grant as a quota immigrant even though he is a non-quota 

Section 13 declares: "(a) No immigrant shall be ad- 
mitted to the United States unless he (1) has an unexpired 


immigration visa or was born subsequent to the issuance oi 
the immigration visa of the accompanying parent, (2) is 
of nationahty specified in the visa in the immigration visa, 
(3) is a non-quota immigrant if specified in the visa in the 
immigration visa as such, and (4) is otherwise admissible 
under the immigration laws. 

''(b) In such classes of cases and under such conditions aai 
may be by regulations prescribed immigrants who have been^ 
legally admitted to the United States and who depart there- 
from temporarily may be admitted to the United Statesi 
without being required to obtain an immigration visa." 

Finally, concerning unused immigration visas, Section 18| 
declares: ''If a quota immigrant of any nationality having! 
an immigration visa is excluded from admission to the 
United States under the immigration laws and deported, 
or does not apply for admission to the United States be- 
fore the expiration of the validity of the immigration visa, 
or if an alien of any nationality having an immigration visaii 
issued to him as a quota immigrant is found not to be ai 
quota immigrant, no additional immigration visa shall be 
issued in lieu thereof to any other immigrant." 

Such then are the provisions in the Act of 1924 con- 
cerning "oversea inspection," which make it possible for 
the first time in our history for the United States Govern- 
ment to effectively control immigration from Europe by a 
proper enforcement of our immigration laws, as well as to 
enable us to reduce the hardships of the immigrants to a 
minimum. These provisions are all the more important 
when we recall that such a plan was first proposed as early 
as 1837 by Friedrich List.^^ It is to the credit of Friedrich 
List that he saw so early in our history the only clear and| 
effective way of controlling the immigration tide, viz., by 
regulating it at its source. If such a plan had been put into 
force years ago the so-called immigration problem would 
not be so big or so difficult to solve as it is today. Perhaps 
no other provision of the Act of 1924 has met with such 
general approval as this one. 

"See Chapter II for List's recommendations, pp. 41-42. 



Under the plan as worked out and now in operation we 
can go fully into the past records of the immigrants, and 
can thereby learn their family history, their mental, moral, 
and physical qualifications. We are now able to weed out 
in advance the weaklings, the diseased, and the morons. 
We come in personal touch through our consuls with each 
immigrant before he leaves his native land.^"* We are able 
to tell him that he can't come in since he belongs to a cer- 
tain excluded class, if such is the case ; that a certain mem- 
ber of his family can't enter, for a similar reason ; or that 
the quota is exhausted. It is better to let him know the 
truth before he departs. To do so prevents undue hard- 
ships, uncertainty, and unnecessary expense to those who 
come. When he is given the immigration visa he knows 
that he may enter as far as the quota is concerned. While 
he may be unable to pass the final inspection and medical 
examination which is made at the port of entry into the 
United States, yet his chances are better now than they 
were before with no official overseas examination. The 
number rejected at the ports of entry have been less under 
the present law than formerly.^^ Such a plan has elimi- 
nated the racing of steamships into the ports of entry on the 
first day of each month. It has eliminated the necessity 

**Iii his annual report for 1926, page 48, the Secretary of Labor stated: 
"One of the outstanding achievements of the year in administration has 
been the extension of the foreign service to continental Europe. Tech- 
nical advisers on immigration questions are now assigned not only to 
the American consulates in the United Kingdom, but also to consulates 
in Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Germany, Norway, Denmark and 
Sweden," countries which "represent approximately 90 per cent of the 
total number of quota immigrants admissible to the United States." On 
December 15, 1926 there were 28 officers stationed abroad doing immigra- 
tion work, distributed as follows: England 4, Ireland 5, Scotland 2, 
France 1, Belgium 1, Holland 1, Denmark 1, Germany 8, Norway 2, 
Sweden 1, and Poland 1. At that time the Public Health Service stated 
that it would be necessary to assign two relief officers to the British 
Isles, Germany, and Scandinavia each. United States Daily, December 
15, 1926. For further details see Hearings of the House Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization on "Methods of Examination of Aliens 
Abroad"— January 21-22, 1926, No. 69.1.5. 

^Out of 276,646 alien applicants applying at the port of New York 
during the fiscal year 1925, 3,606, or 1.2 per cent, were rejected and 
returned. Of a total of 270,074 alien applicants for admission at the 
same port in 1926, only 1,544, or less than six-tenths of 1 per cent, were 
excluded. Annual Report, Secretary of Labor, 1926, p. 48. 


of immigrants being forced to return to Europe due toi 
exhausted quotas. At the same time it gives to our consulsl 
power to prevent obviously undesirable aliens from coming 
to America.-^ If we wish to destroy the poison or the pol- 
lution in a stream, isn't it better to deal with it at its source [ 
rather than to try to extract it many miles away when it i 
has also defiled much water that would otherwise be satis- I 
factory? ! 

Section 16 declares: ''It shall be unlawful for any person ' 
. . . to bring to the United States by water from any place ] 
outside thereof (other than foreign contiguous territory) 
( 1 ) any immigrant who does not have an unexpired immi- ; 
gration visa, or (2) any quota immigrant having an immi- : 
gration visa the visa in which specifies him as a non-quota 
immigrant." The penalty for such illegal transportation 
is a fine of $1,000 for each immigrant so brought, and in ; 
addition a sum equal to that paid by such immigrant for his 
transportation from the initial point of departure, indicated 
in his ticket, to the port of arrival, such latter sum to bei 
delivered by the collector of customs to the immigrant oni 
whose account assessed. 

. Section 22 deals with certain offenses in connection with 1 
the documents, ''(a) Any person who knowingly (1) ; 
forges, counterfeits, or alters, or falsely makes any immigra- 
tion visa or permit, or (2) utters, uses, attempts to use, 
possesses, obtains, accepts, or receives any immigration visa ' 
or permit, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, 
or falsely made, or to have been procured by means of any 
false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise pro- , 
cured by fraud or unlawfully obtained; or who, except j 
under the direction of the Secretary of Labor or other! 

^In his Report for 1926 the Secretary of Labor stated: "Foreign Gov- ^ 
ernments, however, still make the primary selection of immigrants to the 
United States through their control of passport issuances. So long as we ! 
require passports as a necessary document for entry into the United States || 
and as a prerequisite to the securing of a visa, this primary selection of j 
immigrants for the United States will be made by the foreign Govern- i! 
ments concerned. 

"There is not, however, at the present time the evidence of dumping 
that appeared a few years ago." Quoted in United States Daily, Decem- 
ber 10, 1926. 


proper official, knowingly (3) possesses any blank permit, 
I (4) engraves, sells, brings into the United States, or has in 
his control or possession any plate in the likeness of a 
plate designed for the printing of permits, (5) makes any 
print, photograph, or impression in the likeness of any im- 
migration visa or permit, or (6) has in his possession a dis- 
tinctive paper which has been adopted by the Secretary of 
Labor for the printing of immigration visas or permits, shall 
upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $10,000, or 
imprisoned for not more than five years, or both. 

''(b) Any individual who (1) when applying for an im- 
migration visa or permit, or for admission to the United 
States, personates another, or falsely appears in the name 
of a deceased individual, or evades or attempts to evade 
the immigration laws by appearing under an assumed or 
fictitious name, or (2) sells or otherwise disposes of, or 
offers to sell or otherwise dispose of, or utters, an immigra- 
tion visa or permit, to any person not authorized by law 
to receive such document, shall upon conviction thereof, be 
fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more 
than five years, or both. 

''(c) Whoever knowingly makes under oath any false 
statement in any application, affidavit, or other document 
required by the immigration laws or regulations prescribed 
thereunder, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not 
more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more than five 
years, or both." 

These provisions have been stated in full to emphasize 
their seriousness and fullness. That they are necessary 
was soon evident. The following case occurred in August, 
1924. Fifty Poles who were attempting to enter America, 
with false passports and visas were arrested at Marseilles, 
thanks to the new underwear they wore. The manufac- 
turers of the false papers, which were clever enough to 
deceive officials in ordinary circumstances, offered a free 
union suit with the counterfeit credentials. Unfortunately 
for the buyers, they were so pleased with the bargain that 
they donned the underwear inamediately despite the hot 


weather. When the Public Health Surgeon examined the 
group of Poles he was so surprised at the fact that all wore 
new union suits of the same make that he reported the fact 
to an American official. This led to an examination of their 
papers, which under close scrutiny were obviously 

Another scheme to beat the immigration law was the 
formation of an ''opera" company. It was discovered and 
foiled by the police of Naples. A group of ingenious clan- 
destine immigration agents and swindlers formed a regular 
operetta company with the assistance of several bona fide 
Italian artists. The progi^am and itinerary featured a tour 
of North and South America. The company was to call 
itself the Nuova Italia. The great size of the company, 
which contained elements strangely extraneous to operatic 
activities, caused the police to become suspicious and led to 
its downfall. It was discovered that numerous peasants 
and workmen figured in the roll of the company in various 
capacities, each having paid the swindlers from $250 to 
$500 for the privilege.^"^ 

These discoveries are illustrations of the fact that the 
American consular officials must always be on guard against 
faked papers, and that we must punish violators of the law 
when it is possible to do so, although it is difficult to under- 
stand just how or in what manner we can punish persons 
guilty of such offenses abroad. If caught at Ellis Island 
or any other port of entry the question must and will arise 
as to whether we shall simply deport the offenders (which 
would give them another opportunity to enter illegally) 
or whether we shall first fine and imprison and then deport 
them. In many cases, however, it would be impossible to 
fine them for they have little or no money. It would seem 
that the law is not quite definite and clear enough here. 
It is absolutely necessary that some effective punishment 
should be worked out.^^ 

"Taken from the Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1924. 

^Before it adjourned in June, 1926 the House passed what was to have 
been the Deportation Act of 1926. Due to the pressure of other legisla- 
tion no action was taken in the Senate prior to the adjournment of 



Sections 19 and 20 strengthen the provisions in the Act of 
1917 designed to prevent the illegal entrance of aliens as 
seamen, although it is yet doubtful whether the provisions 
are altogether adequate to check the evil they are designed 
to remedy. Experience has demonstrated that the efforts 
of Congress in the passage of acts over a period of many 
years excluding undesirable aliens from the United States 
have been thwarted to an alarming degree by the surrepti- 
I tious entry of persons debarred by the terms of the statute. 
I One of the most fruitful sources of evasion of these pro- 
I visions and illegal entry has been the crews employed on 
: ships entering ports of the United States. In a letter to 
ithe Hon. John E. Raker, Mr. Furuseth stated: ''It is 
generally understood the $1,000 is paid by the Chinese for 
! being landed in the United States in such a way that he can 
\ at once mingle with others of his kind ; and when we know 
that vessels manned with Chinese are constantly going 
away with from 10 to 40 or even 50 men less in the crew 
I than they had on arrival we must realize that we are here 
dealing with a temptation to shipowners and to officers of 
vessels that is great enough to tempt the shipowners as 
well as the officers. Again, vessels coming from Europe 
(have on one trip to this country left behind them from 
I 50 to 150 persons, a great many of whom would have been 
j refused admission if coming as regular immigrants." 

For several years there was no proper enforcement of 
I the provisions in the Act of 1917 designed to deal with this 
condition of affairs, due to a weakness in section 32. The 
flaw was that the shipmaster, although required to detain 
inadmissible seamen, could not be punished for failure to 
detain unless it was shown that he had notice in writing so 
to do. Notice in writing anterior to the breach of respon- 
sibility to detain was physically impossible. 

Congress, March 4, 1927. See Hearinr^s No. 69.1.11 of the House Com- 
mittee on Immigration and Naturalization, March 25, 26, April 13, 1926 
on "Deportation of Alien Criminals, gunmen, narcotic dealers, defectives 
etc.," for much information concerning the necessity for additional legis- 
lation on deportation. 
'"Congressional Record, Monday, June 23, 1924, p. 11637. 


In an apparent effort not to impair in any way the lib- 
erty accorded to seamen under the Act of March 4, 1915, 
commonly known as the LaFollette Law, and at the same 
time, not to impose regulations so onerous as to cripple 
the free movement of shipping, and possibly arouse retal- 
iatory legislation abroad. Congress in sections 19 and 20 
evolved provisions which have proved inadequate to correct 
the evils they were designed to cure. As a result they 
have been subject to much criticism since their enactment. 
Unquestionably, however, they have helped to give effect 
to the general principles upon which the law is based. 
Furthermore, they can be made effective by additional legis- 
lation.^^ Section 19 provides that ''no alien seaman ex- 
cluded from admission to the United States, under the 
immigration laws and employed on board any vessel arriv- 
ing in the United States from any place outside thereof, 
shall be permitted to land in the United States, except tem- 
porarily for medical treatment, or pursuant to such regula- 
tions as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe for the ulti- 
mate departure, removal, or deportation of such alien from 
the United States." 

Section 20, sub-section (a) provides that "the owner, 
charterer, agent, consignee, or master of any vessel arriv- 
ing in the United States from any place outside thereof 
who fails to detain on board any alien seaman employed 
on such vessel until the immigration officer in charge at 
the port of arrival has inspected such seaman . . ., or who 
fails to detain such seaman on board after such inspection 
or to deport such seamen if required by such immigration 
officer or the Secretary of Labor to do so, shall pay to the 
collector of customs of the customs district in which the 
port of arrival is located the sum of $1,000 for each alien 
seaman in respect to whom such failure occurs." Sub- 
section (b) provides that "proof that an alien seaman did 

'"In his report for 1925, the Commissioner-General stated: ''While the 
provision in question has proved decidedly helpful, reports received from 
seaport stations indicate that the door through which aliens are unlaw- 
fully entering in the guise of seamen swings altogether too widely open 
for the welfare of the country." Page 22. 


> not appear upon the outgoing manifest of the vessel on 
h which he arrived in the United States . . . shall be prima 
le facie evidence of a failure to detain or deport after re- 
e quirement by the immigration officer or the Secretary of 
I- 1 Labor." 

l[ Concerning this, the Report of the Commissioner-Gen- 

t'eral of Immigration for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 

i\ 1924, stated: 

"Closely allied to border running is the illegal entry of 

[ alleged seamen who come to United States ports as mem- 

, bers of ships' crews and, taking advantage of shore privi- 
leges granted under the law, desert the vessels bringing 
them and remain in the country. Bona fide seamen have a 
legal right to go ashore in any port, and under our laws are 
free to leave their vessels for the purpose of reshipping 
foreign. In fact this is the natural and inherent right of 

i seagoing men which even the immigration law recognizes 

il and respects." 

The deserting seaman method of gaining illegal entry 

I has been practiced to some extent ever since immigration 
laws began to interfere with the unrestricted coming of 
aliens, but under the quota law, and especially during the 
past few years, such violations have grown to rather alarm- 
ing proportions. This fact is strikingly illustrated in the 
following figures, showing the number of reported deser- 
tions in United States ports in each year since 1911: 

Fiscal year ending June 30 


Fiscal year ending June 30 





















Taken from annual reports of the Commissioner-General of Immi- 


During the 12 years 1911 to 1922, inclusive, the annua' 
average number of desertions was 8,573, and this period in 
eluded the abnormal years of 1920 and 1921, when oceai,* 
transportation suffered what almost amounted to a coll 
lapse. In the two fiscal years referred to hundreds upoij 
hundreds of ocean-going ships of all nations were tied up iij 
harbors of the United States and other countries with th(j 
result that thousands of alien seamen were left stranded ir 
our ports. In view of this it is hardly fair to count the ex\ 
cessive numbers in these two years as desertions, for manj 
thousands of them were simply stranded here, and, as stateC| 
in the annual report for 1922, the Immigration Bureau wa^ 
deluged with requests to deport or in some way to returrl 
them to their home countries. 

This has not been the situation since then, however! 
and the only reasonable explanation of the great increase iri 
desertions is that men who could not come into the country 
in a legal way, largely because of quota restrictions, signecj 
on vessels in foreign ports as seamen and in that guisd 
gained admission by taking illegal advantage of the shore 
liberty which the seaman's act rightfully accords to all 
bona fide followers of the sea. 

*'To construct legislation which will enable the Immigra- 
tion Service to prevent the unlawful entry of aliens in the 
guise of seamen without interfering with the legal and in- 
herent shore privileges of bona fide seamen is a difficult if j 
not impossible task. It is hoped, however, that certain j 
provisions of the immigration act of 1924, . . . will afford ' 
some relief in this regard. The evident purpose of this new ' 
legislation is to avoid infringement on the rights assured ; 
to bona fide seamen under the present seamen's act, but at i 
the same time to make it possible to refuse shore privileges 
to intending immigrants who have taken this means of get- 
ting into the country. The hope of accomplishment lieS; 
in the authority given immigration officers to order the 
detention of pretending seamen on board vessels bringing 
them to a United States port and their deportation on the| 
same vessel, the penalty for failure to so detain and deport| 



mng fixed at $1,000 for each alien seaman in respect of 
Ivhom such failure occurs. 

"The full effect of this provision of law cannot be fore- 
seen, but the outlook is promising, and if its enforcement 
esults in a more careful selection of crews in foreign ports 
vith the purpose to avoid shipping men who are immigrants 
instead of seamen, it is believed that much good will be 

Section 23 places the burden of proof upon the alien to 
< Drove that he is not subject to exclusion under any pro- 
vision of the immigration laws. In any deportation the 
:>urden of proof is also placed upon the alien to show that 
le entered the United States lawfully and is not for any 
jause subject to such deportation, although in presenting 
such proof he is entitled to the production of his immigra- 
tion visa, if any, or other documents concerning his entry, 
in the custody of the Department of Labor. 

The reason for this provision was stated in the report of 

the House Committee as follows: "An alien seeking to 

enter the United States should not stand mute, but should 
1 . . ..... 

assist the Government by showing admissibility if he can. 

iNo longer should admissibility be presumed until the Gov- 
ernment can marshal its forces to prove inadmissibility. An 
alien remains within the country not by right, but by suf- 

,1 In referring to the standing mute of aliens the commit- 
tee doubtless had in mind the important decision of the 
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case 
of an ex-president of Venezuela.^^ 

The Commissioner-General of Immigration in his report 
for 1919 called attention to the serious situation that ex- 

! "Quoted from annual report of Commissioner-General of Immigration 
'for 1924. For detailed information on the subject see Hearings of the 
House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization No. 69.1.5 Janu- 
ary 21 and 22, 1926 on "Deportation of Alien Seamen." See also Sup- 
plementary Hearing No. 69.1.15, May 14, 1926. The deportation bill 
passed by the House June 7, 1926 contained provisions designed to remedy 
the evasions of -these sections of the immigration law. 
House Report 350, 68th Congress, 1st Session. 
United States ex rel. Castro v. Williams, 203 Fed. 155. 



isted in this respect. He stated: ^'A nation, no more thai' 
a man, should be placed in a position where an outside 
can demand the opening of the door without giving a ful 
account of himself and showing that he is a fit persoi; 
to enjoy the hospitality that he seeks." j 

Section 25 declares, ^The provisions of this Act are ii' 
addition to and not in substitution for the provisions oi 
the immigration laws, and shall be enforced as a part o| 
such laws. ... An alien, although admissible under th<| 
provisions of this act, shall not be admitted to the Uniteci 
States if he is excluded by any provision of the immigratiori 
laws other than this act, and an alien, although admissiblt: 
under the provisions of the Immigration laws other thaiij 
this act, shall not be admitted to the United States i:. 
he is excluded by any of the provisions of this Act." \ 

The bill passed the House on April 12 by a vote of 32c: 
to 71 with 38 not voting. It passed the Senate April 18 b> 
an even larger majority, the vote being 62 to 6 with 28 no1 
voting. The President received it on May 19 and signec 
it on May 26, 1924. While an analysis of the vote reveals 
the fact that the fight was not a partisan one, 33 Republi- 
cans and 37 Democrats voting in the House against the 
bill becoming law, nevertheless the vote also reveals the 
fact that races will stick together and that the foreign ele- 
ment in this country has power in Congress. Representa- 
tives voting against the measure were from the following 
States: New York, 24; New Jersey, 9; Massachusetts, 8; 
Pennsylvania and Illinois, 6 each; Connecticut, 5; Rhode 
Island and Michigan, 3 each; while the other votes were 

The population in four of these states according to the census of 192C 
was as follows: 

New York 

Total Population 

Native born of native parents 


New Jersey 

Total Population 

Native born of native parents 



Page 290. 


' Massachusetts 

Total Population 3,852,356 

Native bom of native parents 1,230,773 


Total Population 1,380,631 

Native bom of native parents 449,206 

Nearly one-half of the no votes came from five cities — ■ 
namely, New York, Chicago, Boston, Cleveland and De- 
troit. In three of these five — New York, Chicago, and 
^Cleveland — races of south and east Europe now are the 
'dominant foreign-born nationalities. In Detroit the Poles 
'have reached second place; in Boston, Russians and 
Italians are steadily displacing the Irish. The most in- 
teresting fact, perhaps, is that eighteen of the no votes 
came from New York City, where only one person in five 
is native born of native parents. 

According to Congressman Albert Johnson, the sources of 
opposition were and still are: ^'(1) Those who believe that 
the law is not sufficiently restrictive. For the most part 
J this opposition was not a stumbling block, 
f "(2) Those who believe that the law does not admit 
[enough common laborers to do the rough work of the 
I United States. 

I "(3) Those who, while pretending to favor restriction, 
j really want anybody and everybody except the insane, the 
; criminal and the diseased, so that they may proceed to reap 
. dividends from their particular lines of endeavor, whether 
f the lines be mills, factories, steamships, newspapers of vari- 
f ous languages, or the like, in addition to bondsmen, somo 

lawyers, common crooks, and others who daily exploit the 
I newly arrived alien. 

"(4) Those of an international mind, who think that 
1 migrations should not be impeded, except possibly from 

China, Korea, Japan and India. 

"(5) Those who for religious, racial, or family reasons 
' desire more of their own to be residents of the United 

States. This source of opposition was and is very great, 


coming chiefly from the Jewish, Italian and Catholic ele i 
ments in our country. ' 

*'(6) Those who have been led to believe that the Unitec 
States can go throughout the world handpicking brick 
layers here, plasterers there, gardeners elsewhere an(j 
farmers at another place, and bring them, without though] 
of families, to our States; in other words, selection, distri*! 
bution and supervision." ; 

''See Fairchild, Immigration, rev. ed., pp. 434-450 for the argument^ 
u?ed by the opponents of restriction. 


Back to 1890 ^ 

.''hb history and characteristics of the "old" and the "new" immigra- 
ion — The Italian immigrants — The Slavs — The Russian immigrants — 
The Jewish immigration — Views of various authorities on immigration — 
The test of naturalization — The army tests — Report of Dr. H. H. Laughlin 
kf the Carnegie Institute — Analysis of the quotas based on the census of 
flsQO — The criticism of discrimination is without foundation — Census of 
890 creates equalization rather than discrimination — The National Origins 

At the preseni time European immigration to the United 
States may be divided into two groups, the ^^old" and the 
'new." The ''old" immigration has extended from the be- 
ginning of our colonial and national history to the present 
time and has been and still is derived chiefly from Great 
Britain and Ireland, Germany, Holland, and the Scandina- 
v^ian countries. Since practically all the immigrants to 1890 
belonged to this ''old" immigration, they were predomi- 
nantly Anglo-Saxon-Germanic in blood and Protestant in 
religion — of the same stock as that which originally settled 
the United States, wrote our Constitution and established 
our democratic institutions. The English, Dutch, Swedes, 
iGermans, and even the Scotch-Irish, who constituted prac- 
tically the entire immigration prior to 1890, were less than 
two thousand years ago one Germanic race in the forests^ 
surrounding the North Sea. Thus, being similar in blood 
and in political ideals, social training and economic back- 
ground, this "old" immigration has merged with the native 

*In this chapter it is the purpose of the author merely to set forth and 
analyze the factors and views that have resulted in the opposition to the 
"new" immigration — views which controlled Congress in the drafting of 
the Act of 1924. It is not the author's purpose to judge as to the truth- 
fulness of the facts set forth by those opposed to the ''new" immigration. 



stock fairly easily and rapidly. Assimilation has alwajj ^ 
been only a matter of time and this has been aided by th ? 
economic, social and political conditions of the countr t' 
Even though those already here objected at times to otheij ^ 
coming in, yet once in they have soon become Americaim P 
so assimilated as to be indistinguishable from the nativesj! t" 
for this old immigration has consisted almost wholly q| ? 
families who have come to this country with the full intenl 
tion of making it their home and of becoming Americail 
citizens. It was this immigration that aided so much in thii 
development of agriculture in the great Central West ain| 
in the construction of our incomparable transportation sy& 
tem. Furthermore, in comparison with the recent "new; 
immigration, it has always been small in volume, while th^ 
abundance of free land in the past, our need of pioneeri 
and the willingness of these "old" type immigrants to g( 
into the West and settle on the land, prevented the rise d 
many serious problems. | 
In the period centering about the year 1880, and in par 
ticular in the decade 1880-1890, there was a distinct shifl 
in the immigration movement. Whereas before 1890 most 
of our immigrants were Anglo-Saxons and Teutons fronl 
Northern Europe, since 1890 and prior to the quota legisi 
1 lation in 1924 the great majority were members of thti 
. Mediterranean and Slavic races from Southern, EasterrI 
and Southeastern Europe. The great bulk of this ''new'| 
immigration has its sources in Russia, Poland, Austriai^ 
Hungary, Greece, Turkey, Italy, and the Balkan countries' 
It is this "new" immigration which constitutes the immi- 
gration problem of today. Its solution challenged our at- 

That such a change has occurred can be clearly indicated| 
by figures. | 

The total number of immigrants into the United Statee 
from Western Europe between 1871 and 1880 was 2,080,266 
while the total from southern and eastern Europe was onlyi 
181,638. But between 1901 and 1910 the total from the 
former was 2,007,119, while the number from southern and 

BACK TO 1890 


eastern Europe increased to 6,128,897. Thus, while immir 
gration from western Europe was almost the same for the 
two decades, that from southern and eastern Europe in- 
creased from 181,000 to over 6,000,000. During the former 
period immigration from the latter portion constituted 
only 9 per cent of the total from Europe, while in the 
iperiod from 1901 to 1910 it was about 75 per cent. The 
following table will illustrate the point still further, show- 
jing the gradual decrease of the old and the rapid increase 
lof the new immigration : 

Eight years (1882-1889) : 

Old immigration 3,019,6C6 

New immigration 708.357 

Total 3,728,053 

Seven years (1890-1896): 

Old immigration 1,652,797 

1 New immigration 1,194,189 

Total 2,846,986 

Eighteen years (1897-1914) : 

Old immigration 2,983,548 

New immigration 10,057,576 

Total 13,041,124 

Total old immigration (1882-1914) 7,566,041 

Total new immigration (1882-1914) 11,960,122 

! Total immigration from Europe, old and new (1882-1914) 19,526,163 

The relative proportion of the old and new immigration 
[groups is as follows: (Under the ''old" immigration are 
I classified all immigrants from the United Kingdom, Ger- 
imany, France, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Switzer- 
land and Sweden, while under the "new" immigration are 
included those from Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, 
Czechoslovakia, Italy, Jugoslavia, Poland, Russia, Finland, 
Spain, Portugal, Rumania and Turkey) : 


Old Immigration 

New Immigration 







l ^SO-1890 










22 8 






BACK TO 1890 


Under the 3 per cent law of 1921 the old immigration was 
entitled to 56.33 per cent, while the new immigration had 
44.64 per cent. Under the new law of 1924 the respective 
percentages are 84.11 and 14.88. We shall discuss these 
facts later in the chapter. It is important to note here, 
however, that the quota laws have changed the relative pro- 
portions radically, so that now they are about what they 
were prior to 1890. 

The summary of arrivals from 1819 to 1919 according to 
the sources of immigration were as follows: 



Per cent, of 





i Germany 








1 Russia 







It is to be noted that practically all the immigrants from 
Italy, Austria-Hungary and Russia have come in since 1890. 
Immigrants from these countries were practically negli- 
igible until 1882. Italy sent 32,160 in 1882, a maximum of 
77,647 in 1903, and 29,391 in 1914. Russia sent 21,590 in 
1882, a maximum of about 291,000 in 1913, and 255,660 
lin 1914. Austria-Hungary sent 27,935 in 1881, a maximum 
lof 338,452 in 1907, and 278,152 in 1914. Scandinavia 
laveraged approximately 50,000 per year from 1869 to 
1914, with extremes of 11,274 in 1877 and 105,326 in 

I Indeed, more than half the approximate 35,000,000 immi- 
Igrants who have come to our shores since 1820 have come 
iwithin the last thirty-five years. The peak of immigration 
was reached in the decade preceding the World War when 
in the years 1905, 1906, 1907, 1910, 1913 and 1914 more 
than a million immigrants landed each year, while immi- 
Igration averaged about 800,000 for each year not men- 

Immigration to the United States of Northern and Western European 
Races and Southern and Eastern European Races, 1899 to 1923* 

1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 



U 00,000 

1895 1900 1905 

1915 19?0 1925 

* From Eleventh Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor for the fiscal 
year ended June 30, 1923. 


BACK TO 1890 209 

During the years 1899 to 1923 the total immigration may 
be summarized thus : 

General Race Classes. 

[For years earlier than 1899 figures are not available.] 




Eastern and 




All races 


















































































































































































However, the net immigration was not so great by about 
a third, as may be seen from the table on page 210. 

Let us note briefly the characteristics of the new immi- 
grants. The immigrants from Italy have differed from 
those from Russia, Austria-Hungary and Ireland in that 
they have not been driven forth by the oppression of the 
dominant race, but as a result of the economic and political 
conditions of a united people. This does not exclude op- 
pression as a cause of expatriation, but it transfers the 
oppression from that of one race to that of one class upon 
another. By far the larger portion of Italian immigration 
has come a>id still comes from the southern provinces and 
from Sicily, where the power of the landlords is greatest. 



Immigration and Emigration, and Net Gain or Loss, 1908 to 1923, 

BY Race* 

(Figures for Emigration are not of Record for Earlier Period.) 




Bohemian and Moravian 

Bulgarian, Serbian and Mon- 


Croatian and Slovenian 


Dalmatian, Bosnian, and 

Dutch and Flemish 

East Indian 








Italian (North) 

Italian (South) 






Pacific Islands 





Ruthenian (Russniak) 





Spanish American 




West Indian (except Cuban) 

Other Peoples 

Not Specified 

Total 9,949,740 




Ppr ppn f 
TT.rnioprn - 

-1— iXi-lIgX CX 

f 1 nn nf 




















— 10,914 















































































































































— 147,645 





* From I']lev'enth Annual Report of Secretary of Labor for the fiscal yea; 
ended June 30, 1923. 

BACK TO 1890 


The prosperity of the landlords is extracted from the miser- 
: able wages of their laborers, whose cost of living does not, 
j however, correspond with the low wages. In addition to 
i the economic and political causes of pressure, there is an- 
' other cause of a more profound nature, the rapid growth of 
population. The very poverty of Italy increases the tend- 
ency to a high birth-rate and the rate is highest in the very 
1 districts where illiteracy and poverty are greatest. Thus 
' early marriages and large families are both a result and a 
cause of poverty. Emigration is the only immediate relief 
for such a condition. All other remedies which operate 
through raising the intelligence and the standards of living 
i require years for appreciable results, but meanwhile the 
I persistent birth-rate crowds new competitors into the new 
1' openings and multiplies the need of economic and political 
reforms before they can be put into effect. While emigra- 
tion is thus a relief ready at hand, it is not a lessening of 
population, an important fact to be considered in our re- 
striction of immigration. Emigration is also a means of 
revenue for the mother country. Many millions of dollars 
are sent back each year to families and relatives, while 
many immigrants return with what to them is a fortune 
in order to purchase and improve a farm and cottage for 
their declining years. It is for the most part these tem- 
rporary immigrants into the United States whom it is impos- 
Isible to assimilate or to Americanize. 

There are two kinds of emigration from Italy, almost as 
. entirely distinct from each other as the emigration from 
two separate nations. The north Italian is an educated, 
skilled artisan, coming from a manufacturing section and 
largely from the cities. He is Teutonic in blood and ap- 
pearance. The South Italian is virtually an illiterate 
peasant from the great landed estates, with wages less 
than one-third that of his northern compatriot. The North 
Italians have not come to the United States in any con- 
siderable numbers. They have gone to Argentina, Uru- 
jguay, and Brazil in about the same numbers as the South 


Italians have come to us.^ The reason for this seems to be 
obvious. With their higher standards of living the North 
Italians have not desired to come here to compete with 
the low standards of the South Italians any more than 
American laborers or immigrants from Northern and West- 
ern Europe desire to or can compete with them. Thus,; 
while the North Italians have gone to South America we 
have received the South Italians, ''who are nearly the most 
illiterate of all immigrants at the present time, the most 
subservient to superiors, the lowest in their standards of 
living and at the same time the most industrious and 
thrifty of all common laborers." ^ 

The immigration prior to the World War from that part 
of Europe which constituted the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 
unlike the Italians, was composed of a congeries of races 
and languages distinct from one another. With the break- 
ing up of the Empire most of these races have been given 
each its own quota of immigrants into the United States. 
But the significance of this immigration is revealed only 
when we analyze it by races. Prior to the World War the 
race map of this Empire showed the most complicated 
social mosaic of all modern nations and as far as present 
day immigration is concerned the same situation exists 
despite the break up of the empire. Prior to the war there 
existed a juxtaposition of hostile races and a fixity of lan- 
guage held together only by the outside pressure of the 
powerful neighboring nations. This conflict of races aggra- 
vated the conditions which caused millions to emigrate. 
Not only were there five grand divisions of the human 
family — the German, the Slav, the Magyar, the Latin, and 
the Jew — within what was formerly Austria-Hungary, but 
these had to be sub-divided to really understand the situa- 
tion. In the northern mountainous and hilly sections were 
the Slavic peoples, the Czechs, or Bohemians, with their 
closely related Moravians, and the Slavic Slovaks, Poles, 

*See Commons, Races and Immigrants in America (new edition), p. 78. 
Chapter IV, "Nineteenth Century Additions," should be read in this con- 

^ Commons, oj). cit., p. 79. 

BACK TO 1890 213 

and Ruthenians (Russniaks) ; while in the southern hills 
aiitl along the Adriatic were other Slavs, the Croatians, 
.Servians, Dalmatians, and Slovenians. Between these divi- 
,sions were the two dominant races, the Magyars and the 
:, Germans. To the southwest was the Italian element and 
I in the east were the Latinized Slavs, the Rumanians. In 
[general the Slavs were the conquered peoples, being domi- 
' nated by the Germans and Magyars. The northern Slavs 
were subject to Austria and Hungary. The Ruthenians 
suffered a double subjection, being serfs of their fellow- 
Slavs, the Poles, whom they hate. The Southern Slavs and 
Rumanians were subject to Hungary. In general it may be 
said that the Slavic immigrant furnishes a most difficult 
problem in assimilation due to the fact that his past, his cus- 
toms and his inherited traditions make change slow. 

''With all of this confusing medley of races, with its 
, diversity of Greek and Roman Catholicism and Judaism, 
with its history of race oppression and hatred, with its 
•almost universal serfdom and low standards of living, it is 
not surprising that in America the different races should 
group and settle together and often break out into factions 
and feuds wherever thrown together among us." ^ 

For, from such a conglomeration of races it is impossible 
that political and social entanglements and difficulties 
/ should not arise. Coming in millions it has been impossible 
to even begin to assimilate and Americanize them. Practi- 
cally the entire immigration has been that of peasants. As 
in other countries of low standards, the number of births 
in this section of Europe is large in proportion to the 
, inhabitants. Thus poverty, ignorance, inequality and help- 
lessness all play their part in producing a very high birth- 
rate. The result has been the emigration to America of 
many whose low standards of living, whose ignorance and 
racial hatreds have made it impossible for us under present 
conditions to assimilate and have marked them, in the 
: minds of those who favor immigration restriction, along 
y with the Italians and Russians, as undesirable immigrants. 

I * Commons, op. cit., p. 82. 


The significant fact concerning Russian immigration is 
that less than five per cent of it has been Russian and the 
rest non-Russian. ^'The Russian peasant has been and 
probably is the most oppressed of the peasants of Europe. I 
He is also probably the most ignorant and degraded. He' 
has been so tied to the soil by his system of communism, 
his burden of taxes and debt and his subjection to auto-' 
cratic rule, that he has been until recently immune to the 
fever of emigration." ^ During the past few years in the! 
face of starvation and famine million-s have migrated to 
other parts of Europe. Millions more have wanted to do 
likewise. However, the races which have abandoned Rus-i 
sia in the last thirty years or more have been driven forthi 
primarily because they refused to submit to the policyj 
which would by force assimilate them to the language oit 
religion of the dominant race, among whom have been the 
Jews, the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Finns, and some Ger-i 
mans who settled east of the Volga river over a centuryj 
ago by invitation of Catherine II. The Poles and Lithu-j 
anians are Slavic peoples, while the Finns are a Teutoniq 
people with a Mongol language. Due to changes resulting 
from the World War, each of these races with the exceptiori 
of the Jewish, has its own quota of immigrants who mayi 
enter the United States. But the conditions in this part of 
Europe, which have marked these races as undesirable 
immigrants continue at the present time, and are similar 
to those which have created the belief that immigrants 
from what was formerly Austria-Hungary are undesirable 

Most of the present Jewish immigration is from Russia 
and what is not from there comes from adjoining territory 
which has been the case for thirty years or more. Durin^ 
American history Jewish immigration has come here frorr 
all countries of Europe, the first recorded immigratior 
being that of Dutch Jews, driven from Brazil by the Por- 
tuguese and received by the Dutch government of Ne\^ 
Amsterdam. Quite a large number of Portuguese anc 
Spanish Jews have come to America by way of Holland 

"Commons, op. cit., p. 87. 

BACK TO 1890 


The great influx of German Jews followed the Napoleonic 
wars and reached its height at the middle of the century. 

Under the Catholic polity following the Crusades the 
Jew had no rights and he could therefore gain protection 
only through the personal favor of emperor, king or feudal 
lord. The sovereigns of Europe protected the Jews in 
order to exact large sums of money from their profits as 
usurers and traders. The Jews, being thus utilized like 
sponges to draw from the subjects illicit taxes, became the 
lobject of persecution when the people gained power over 
'their sovereigns^ Only in Germany and other parts of the 
Holy Roman Empire where political confusion prevailed 
were the emperor and petty sovereigns able to continue 
their protection of the Jews. There was only one country, 
'^Poland, in the center of Europe, where the kings invited the 
Jews and hither the persecuted race fled from the Russians 
, in the east and later from the Germans in the west. How- 
ever, Poland was soon divided between Russia, Prussia and 
I Austria and the persecutions continued. The popular 
hatred of the Jews in Europe has been stirred at times to a 
frenzy by yellow journals. There is reason to believe that 
in the past the Russian government has encouraged this 
popular antipathy toward the Jewish race for the sake 
of diverting the indignation of the masses from itself. It 
I is certain that the attitude of the government has been 
, most hostile toward the Jews. It is true, therefore, that 
, they have been subject to much oppression in Russia in 
I the last fifty years and since the World War their suffering 
, has been great, although it has hardly been worse than 
j that of the Armenians. It is partly due to these oppres- 
! sions that so many Jews desire to come to America. How- 
ever, the present quota law based on the census of 1890 
has resulted in a drastic reduction of the Jewish immigra- 
tion since it is largely from Russia and adjoining territory. 
I It is for this reason that the Jews in America, especially 
I in the eastern states, are for the most part bitterly opposed 
\ to the present quota legislation.* 

*It is impossible here to siudy in detail the merits of the Jewish im- 


Let us analyze the views of some of the leading authori 
ties on immigration to see what they say concerning thr 
*'new" immigration.* i 

In his discussion of the change in the character of Euro^ 
pean immigration since 1890, Professor Commons says:i 
. ''A line drawn across the Continent of Europe from nortlj 
east to south west, separating the Scandinavian peninsular! 
the British Isles, Germany, and France from Russi^ 
Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Turkey, separates countries no! 
only of distinct races but also of distinct civilizations. It 
separates Protestant Europe from Catholic Europe ; it sepa-, 
rates countries of representative institutions and populaij 
government from absolute monarchies; it separates landd 
where education is universal from lands where illiteracy 
predominates; it separates manufacturing countries, pros 
gressive agriculture, and skilled labor from primitive hanc 
J industries, backward agriculture, and unskilled labor; i1 
V separates an educated, thrifty peasantry, from a peasantry! 
scarcely a single generation removed from serfdom; it sepa-' 
rates Teutonic races from Latin, Slav, Semitic, and Mon-| 
golian races. When the sources of American immigration! 
are shifted from the Western countries so nearly allied td 
our own, to Eastern countries so remote in the main at- 
tributes of Western civilization, the change is one thatj 
should challenge the attention of every citizen. Such a 
, change has occurred." ^ 

In his ''History of the American People," 'Woodrowi 
Wilson stated : 'The census of 1890 showed the population'j 
of the country increased to 62,622,250, an addition of 12,- 
466,467 within the decade. Immigrants poured steadily in| 
as before, but with an alteration of stock which students ofl 
affairs marked with uneasiness. Throughout the century 

migration from Russia. Much literature, pro and con, exists on the sub- 
ject. It is evident, however, that the present restrictions against them 
mark the end to the United States being an asylum for the oppressed of 
any and all countries. 

* The author has tried to select statements which reflect the views and 
set forth the arguments used by the restrictionists in recent years, which 
had weight with Congress, without regard to the merits thereof. i 

•Commons, op. ext., pp. 69-70. 'Vol. V, p. 212. || 


BACK TO 1890 217 

nen of the sturdy stocks of the north of Europe had made 
ip the main strain of foreign blood which was every year 
idded to the vital working force of this country or else 
iTien of the Latin-Galhc stocks of France and northern 
|[taly, but now there came multitudes of men of the lower 
plass from the south of Italy and men of the meaner sort 
[3ut of Hungary and Poland — men out of the ranks where 
there was neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of 
quick intelligence^ — and they came in numbers which in- 
creased from year to year, as if the countries of the south 
Df Europe were disburdening themselves of the more sordid 
f^and hapless elements of their population, the men whose 
istandards of life and of work were such as American work- 
men had never dreamed of hitherto. 

'The people of the Pacific coast had clamored these many 
years against the admission of immigrants out of China, 
and in May, 1892, got at least what they wanted — a Fed- 
eral statute which practically excluded from the United 
States all Chinese who had not already acquired the right 
of residence ; and yet the Chinese were more to be desired, 
as workmen if not as citizens, than most of the coarse crew 
that came crowding in every year at the eastern ports." 

Speaking in the Senate ® in favor of the literacy test, Mr. 
Elihu Root of New York State said: ^'I think there is a 
general and well founded feeling that we have been taking 
in immigrants from the Old World in recent years rather 
more rapidly than we have been assimilating them. They 
[have been coming in rather more rapidly than they have 
been acquiring American habits of thought and the Ameri- 
can spirit of government. 

"The specific reason why I think this educational quali- 
fication will, as a whole, be a great advantage is that it will 
especially affect a very large immigration from southeastern 
Europe, which has in recent years furnished the unassimi- 
lated element, this element which is difficult for us to 
tassimilate, and which when it gets here is cut off from the 
general sentiment and opinion of the country.'' 
"April 18, 1912. 




In his report to the Senate ^ recommending the emergenc;' 
quota legislation of 1921, Senator Dillingham stated: "Thi 
new immigration coming almost wholly from southern an( 
eastern Europe differs in character from the old immigra; 
tion in that substantially 70 per cent of it, as a whole, con 
sists of males, and substantially 86 per cent of the malei; 
are living single lives, being unmarried or having left theiil 
wives in Europe. They come to the United States no' 
so much for the purpose of remaining here and making 
homes as to seek profitable employment at the seats o:' 
our great basic industries. ... 

'The committee does not look upon normal immigratior' 
from northern and western Europe as in any sense a prob 
lem. Such immigration has from the beginning been to i 
large extent one of families; they have come to the Unitec 
States with the intention of remaining and making homes ; 
they have distributed themselves throughout the Unitec 
States, have become property owners, are interested in all 
local and national problems, and are also readily assimi- 
lated into the body of American citizenship. . . . Unlike 
the older immigration which distributed itself to every part 
of the country, entered every branch of activity and was 
as a rule, quickly and thoroughly assimilated, the new 
immigration has consisted largely of single men, it has gone 
directly to the cities and to the manufacturing centers, and 
has remained there. It has moved in racial groups and to 
a large extent has maintained them, and compared with 
the older immigration it, as a rule, shows a slighter tend- 
ency to become American citizens and the number who have 
gone to the land have been negligible. 

''The committee are of the opinion that in the present 
emergency a restriction should be applied to the type last 
described and are convinced that such restriction should be 
accomplished through some measure that will insure defi- 
nite effectiveness." 

In an article, 'The Menace of the Open Door," Profes- 

" Senate Report No. 17, pp. 3-8, U. S. 67th Congress, 1st Session, April j 
28, 1921. I 

I BACK TO 1890 219 

uor E. A. Ross stated: '^As a result of the growing hetero- 
i;eneity society can scarcely make up its mind any more 
|5ave on matters of such elemental appeal as fire protection, 
sanctity of property, good roads and public improvements. 
The 'interests', politicians, and the foreign nationalistic 
^organizations play one element off against another so that 
jA^e are not getting on as we should. 

\ ''Long ago Americans formed the habit of expecting their 
'Country to lead the world in popular progress. But we 
lave had the mortification of seeing people after people 
ipass ahead of us in such matters as education, status of 
women, sanitation, law enforcement, vice suppression, pub- 
lic morals, etc. In infant saving thirteen peoples are ahead 
[oi us. Such stalling and fumbling is the inevitable result 
of the cross purposes and confusion of ideas that result 
from excessive heterogeneity." 

I As early as 1891 Francis A. Walker wrote: "Foreign im- 
migration into this country has, from the time it first as- 
sumed large proportions, amounted not to a reinforcement 
of our population, but a replacement of native by foreign 
stock. . . . The American shrank from the industrial com- 
petition thus thrust upon him. He was unwilling himself 
to engage in the lowest kind of day labor with these new 
elements of population; he was even more unwilling to 
bring sons and daughters into the world to enter into that 
competition. . . . The more rapidly foreigners came into 
the United States, the smaller was the rate of increase, not 
merely among the native population separately, but 
throughout the population of the country as a whole.'* 
The inevitable result has been foreign colonies and great 
numbers of unassimilated aliens in our midst. 
, In 1890 Professor R. M. Smith claimed that the out- 
breaks of anarchism and socialism in this country are due 
to the presence of unassimilated foreigners. He stated: 
"An indication of the unfortunate effect of introducing so 
many men of foreign birth and belief into our social body 

I ^Overland Monthly, February, 1922, pp. 27-29. 
"Quoted in Commons, op. cit., pp. 198-199. 


is seen in the recent outbreaks of anarchism and socialism. 
These movements are always led and for the most part car- 
ried on by persons of foreign birth. Socialism and an- 
archism are not plants of American growth nor of Anglo- 1 
Saxon origin. They are not natural to the American mind; ' 
neither are they due to any deterioration in the condition 
of the laboring class in this country, and thus the fruit of 
despair and hopelessness in regard to the future. They are ' 
the importations of foreign agitators who come here for the 
purpose of making converts to their doctrines.^' 

Speaking in the House of Representatives, Congressman 
S. D. McReynolds stated: ^The census of 1920 shows 
that there were nearly 14,000,000 of foreign birth in the ' 
United States. Statistics show that of all males over 21 
years of age in the United States 22.1 per cent are of foreign 
birth, which is over one fifth of the total. Of course, much 
higher percentages are reported in certain sections of the ' 
country. In the Western Atlantic States — New York, New 
Jersey and Pennsylvania — 35.4 per cent of the male popula- 
tion 21 years of age and over is foreign born. In the New 
England States, 38.2 per cent; in Massachusetts, 41.9 per 
cent; in Boston, 46.3 per cent; and in New York City, 53.4 
per cent. And it is further estimated that 80 per cent of 
the population in New York City is either foreign born or 
of foreign parentage. Is not this condition alarming? . . . 

^'Suppose we concede, for the sake of argument, that 
those who come are as intelligent as we are; as moral as we 
are; as law-abiding as we are; but coming, as they do, with 
different environments, different ideas of government, dif- 
ferent social relations and ideals, they will hold on to their 
ideals, spreading their doctrines in this country and under- 
taking to force the same upon us. They have never lived 
under a republic, and it is the history of most Latin coun- 
tries that a republic cannot prevail, that they live greatly 
in revolution and fomentation. Any judge can constitute 
an alien an American citizen, but it takes a change of heart 

"Smith, R. Mayo, Emigration and Immigration, p. 88. 
"April 8, 1924. Congressman McReynolds was a mcinbor of the House 
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. 

BACK TO 1890 


land mind to make an American. . . . An immigrant might 
be a good worker and a good citizen in his own country by 
intuition but not necessarily able to become a good 

I "One of the greatest menaces is the large number of 
newspapers published in this country in foreign languages. 
There are over 1,500 such papers published in the United 
iStates in more than 30 different languages. The constant 
luse of the native language of itself has a tendency to pre- 
vent the amalgamation of and Americanization of foreign- 
ers, and furthermore, there was proof before your commit- 
tee that many of these papers are disloyal to this Govern- 
ment, teaching loyalty to the government from which they 
icome. In a single block in New York City it is said that 18 
languages are spoken. In fact, this great city was referred 
'to by one of foreign birth before your committee in the 
House as the greatest foreign city in the world. . . . 

"The conditions existing in this country, as well as 
throughout Europe, are such that we must protect America 
^from this foreign menace which is seeking to enter our 

"Since the world's Great War, many dangerous and 
deadly doctrines have sprung up throughout Europe; gov- 
ernments have been changed over night, and in many in- 
jstances the rights of property and freedom of speech and 
action are unknown. These same dangerous and deadly 
idoctrines have been spread throughout this country, to 
a great extent by foreign propaganda and foreigners. 

"Communists with headquarters in Russia are perfecting 
their organizations in this country, and to such an extent 
that not long since the Secretar}^ of State, Mr. Hughes, saw 
^t to expose their intrigues in this country and claimed that 
the final purpose of these organizations was to overthrow 
the Government of the United States and plant a Red Flag 
lupon the White House in Washington. Not long since 
•Lenin, the great leader of the Communistic party, which 
controls Russia, died; and since that time over a thousand 
memorials have been held in this country for him. This 


shows the dangers which we face and that it is up to the 
American people to see that America is kept American." 

On March 12, 1924, there appeared in the Washington 
Post, an administration paper, an editorial headed ''Speed 
Immigration Legislation." This editorial, among other 
things, said: 

''In the earlier years of the Republic immigration was 
not at a rate that negatived absorption, and most of those 
who entered did so with intent and purpose to make them- 
selves Americans, to attain the American viewpoint and to 
adopt American ideals and to adapt themselves to the cus- 
toms and habits of mind of the nation. But in more recent 
years a large percentage of immigrants have come with 
differences. For decades now immigrants that have been 
pouring in have obviously been bent on seizing the oppor- 
tunities offered by America but without disposition to 
adapt themselves to the American viewpoint and to adopt 
American ideals and concepts of government and citizen- 
ship in return. The record is crowded with instances in 
which groups of immigrants have stoutly resisted Ameri- 
canism, have resented the suggestion that they acquire the 
language of the land, and have maintained their foreign- 
isms. From their entrance great numbers of them have 
made it plain by their conduct that they propose merely 
to take what America has to give without giving what 
America should receive. At the present time, in certain 
areas, immigrants constitute a substantial percentage of the 
population, and drifting together and holding aloof from 
Americanization, hold themselves as foreigners in America." 

Concerning the distribution of immigration in the United 
States, Professor Seager states: 

"A complicating aspect of the growth of cities in the 
United States has been the large foreign element which 
most of them contain. In only twenty-eight of the sixty- 
eight cities having more than 100,000 inhabitants in 1920 

"The fear of Russian influence and radicalism in this country is still 
widespread, but is obviously overdrawn. Recent echoes of such fears have 
been heard in our relationship with Mexico and Central America in 1926- 

BACK TO 1890 


did native whites of native parentage constitute as much as 
one-half of the population. In nineteen of these cities, six- 

, teen of which were in the New England and Middle Atlan- 

' tic Divisions, over two-thirds of the population consisted 
of foreign bom whites and their children. In twenty-one 
of them, including New Bedford (40 per cent), New York 

! (35 per cent), Chicago (30 per cent), and Boston (32 per 

; cent), the foreign-born alone constituted more than one- 

; fourth of the population. This large foreign element in 
American municipalities has added materially to the eco- 

. nomic and political difficulties with which these rapidly 
growing centers of population have had to contend. . . . 

: The states in which the foreign born constituted over one- 
fourth of the population in 1920 were: Rhode Island, Mas- 
sachusetts, New York and Connecticut. If to the foreign 

' born in these states be added the native born of foreign 
parentage, the foreign element is even more conspicuous. 
Thus in 1920 the foreign born and the native born one or 

' more of whose parents were foreign born, constituted in 
Rhode Island 70 per cent of the population; in Massa- 
chusetts and North Dakota 67 per cent; in Connecticut and 

u Minnesota 65 per cent; and in New York 63 per cent." 

I In an article on immigration by Dr. M. Victor Safford 

I of the U. S. Public Health Service, w^e find the following 
remarks concerning the new immigration : ^^This immigra- 
tion has been furnishing social and economic problems in 

j the countries it has left. In our daily official duties we 
come to know as belonging to a normal human adult type 
the individual who cannot count to twenty every time cor- 

I rectly; who can tell the sum of two and two, but not of 

1 nine and six; name the days of the week, but not the 
months of the year; who knows that he has arrived at New 
York or Boston, as the case may be, but does not know the 

1 route he followed from his home or how long it took to 

(reach here; who says he is destined to America, but has to 
"Seager, H. R., Principles of Economics, rev. ed., pp. 34-35. 
"Presented at the 15th International Con^iress on Hygiene and Demog- 
raphy, 1912. See also Safford, Immigration Problems (1925). 



rely on showing a written address for further particulars; 
who swears he paid his own passage, but is unable to tell 
what it cost, and at the same time shows an order for rail- 
road transportation to destination, prepaid in this country. 
. . . Temperamental qualities, lack of mechanical aptitude 
and of physical strength, impose limitations on their ability 
to enter the more desirable productive occupations to a far 
greater degree than is the case of the Western European 
immigrants. . . . Marked growth in the immigration of 
any particular nationality or race has always followed the 
discovery of its ability to compete in other occupations 
which have hitherto been carried on by older elements of 
our population. The entrance of a new immigrant type in 
such occupations has tended to be followed by the disap- 
pearance of the people previously employed in the occupa- 
tions concerned. In so far as the previous labor supply 
may have been derived from an immigration of an older 
type, that immigration is checked." 

In comparing our ability to assimilate the new with the 
old immigration Frederic J. Haskin has written:^'' "The 
process is a longer and more tedious one, and one to which 
the immigrant does not lend himself as readily. . . . The 
immigrant from northwestern Europe quickly becomes a 
citizen. . . . Since three out of every four of our present- 
day (1912) immigrants come from countries where pubhc 
education is unheard of, where popular participation in the 
affairs of the government is undreamed of, where dire pov- 
erty is the rule, it is apparent that the immigration prob- 
lem is a grave one. And then, when w^e consider that two- 
thirds of this new immigration comes from the rural village 
and is dumped out upon our big centers of population, 
where vice surrounds it and fattens upon it, where it feels 
all of the worst effects of our civilization and none of its 
better effects, the wonder grows that the problem is not 
more serious than it is. But that it is a problem serious 
enough is recognized by all who have studied our immigra- 
tion. While the new immigrant, with his willingness to 

"The Immigrant, pp. 29-35 (1913), | 

BACK TO 1890 


work in the dirt and filth and the dangers that are a con- 
comitant, has made possible much of America's splendid 
industrial development, the very fact of his willingness to 
brave these things and to brave them at scant wages, has 
made him a liabihty to the nation. . . . Landing in a big 
jcity he is immediately beset by those who would exploit 
I him. The toll that is taken of these immigrants is fearful. 
In the vast majority of cases their condition for the time 
being is worse in America than it was in their native lands. 
I But they sacrifice themselves today in America in order 
that tomorrow at home they may live in comfort. But 
from this it is evident that their assimilation must be un- 
certain and their value to the body politic a doubtful 

Another test by which the advocates of immigration re- 
striction undertook to determine whether the immigrant 
;from northern and western Europe or the one from south- 
ern and eastern Europe can be more easily assimilated and 
I is, therefore, more desirable as an immigrant was to see to 
'what extent each has become fully naturalized. Figures 
bearing on this point which were used by the advocates 
!of restriction are given in the following two tables, ab- 
' stracted from the report of the United States Immigration 
1 Commission. 

Percentage of Immigrants Fully Naturalized." 
(Males 21 years of age or over, resident 5 years or over in the U. S.) 

'Old" Races 

Swiss 76.3% 

Swedish 73.9% 

Welsh 73.0% 

Irish 70.2% 

I German 69.6% 

Scotch 64.1% 

Danish 62.9% 

Norw^egian 55.6% 

English 55.2% 

Dutch 51.8% 

[Belgian 45.1% 

' French 40.9% 

New" Races 

Austrian 22.1% 

Polish 19.1% 

Russian 15.1% 

Slovenian 14.3% 

Slovak 12.1% 

Magyar 10.87o 

Spanish 9.7% 

Ruthenian 8.7% 

Rumanian 8.6% 

Greek 6.9% 

Serbian 4.7% 

Portuguese 3.2% 

"Vol. I, p. 484 (1910). 



Percentage Naturalized and Holding First Papers." 

''Old'' Races 

Swedish 92.3% 

Swiss 92.1% 

Welsh 87.0% 

Danish 86.8% 

German 85.7% 

Norwegian 85.6% 

Irish 82.6% 

English 80.6% 

Dutch 79.9% 

Scotch 79.1% 

Belgian 76.5% 

Bohemian and Moravian... 76.2% 

French 66.5% 

Canadian (other than 

French) 56.7% 

Canadian (French) 31.5% 

Mexican 10.0% 

"New" Races 

Hebrew (other than Rus- 
sian) 61.6% 

Finnish 61.2% 

Hebrew, Russian 57.2% 

Austrian 53.1% 

Armenian 49.2% 

Italian, North. 45.8% 

Bulgarian 36.8% 

Slovenian 35.8% 

Polish 33.1% 

Lithuanian 32.5% 

Italian, South 30.1% 

Russian 28.0% 

Magyar 26.87o 

Slovak 22.8% 

Croatian 22.5% 

Rumanian 21.9% 

Syrian 20.7% 

Greek 20.2% 

Ruthenian 19.8% 

Spanish 13.6% 

Serbian 12.8% 

Cuban 12.1% 

Portuguese 5.5% 

"Vol. I, pp. 485-6. 

According to the census of 1920 the following table shows 
the per cent of our foreign-born population who had become 
naturalized : 

Country op Origin — Per Cent Naturalized.^ 

Northern and Western Europe Per Cent 

Wales 72.9 

Germany 72.8 

Denmark 69.2 

Sweden 69.0 

Norway 67.3 

Ireland 65.7 

Switzerland 64.9 

England 63.1 

Scotland 60.9 

Belgium and Luxemburg 60.8 

France 56.7 

Netherlands 56.0 

U. S. Ceasus, 1920, Vol. II, p. 805. 

BACK TO 1890 


Country of Origin — Per Cent Naturalized (Continued). 

Southern and Eastern Europe Per Cent 

Czechoslovakia 45.8 

Finland 41.3 

Rumania 41.1 

Russia 40.2 

Austria 37.7 

Hungary 29.1 

Italy 28.1 

Poland 28.0 

Yugo-Slavia 25.2 

Lithuania 25.6 

Turkey in Europe 20.2 

Greece 16.8 

Portugal 16.4 

Bulgaria 12.1 

Spain 9.9 

Albania 7.4 

Naturalization of all foreign-born 47.2 

It is obvious in any impartial study of the influence of 
foreign immigration on American laws, American institu- 
i tions, American customs, and American civilization in gen- 
eral, that the facts disclosed by the above tables must be 
considered of the greatest importance. To study these fig- 
ures is to see clearly why the advocates of restriction 
wanted to cut down the immigration from the southern 
and eastern Europe, for in not a single case in the above 
• table for 1920 does the naturalization of the "new" im- 
! migration of any country reach 50 per cent. 

These compilations of the Immigration Commission of 
1907 and the United States census have been criticized by 
a number of students of the subject, including John P. 
Gavit, Professor Franz Boas,^^ Henry J. Ford,^^ George A. 
jSchreiner and others. In his book '^Americans By 
jiChoice",^^ Gavit criticizes the conclusion drawn from these 
itables by the advocates of restriction. 

He states: "To these reports is attributable almost en- 
tirely the familiar conventional generalization that there is 
a marked distinction in what might be called 'quality of 

' ^American Mercury, October, 1924. 
■ ''Ibi^I., September, 1924. 

^Ibid., December, 1924. 

"* Chapters VII and VIII. 


assimilability' between the so-called 'old immigration' and 
the 'newer'. . . . Inasmuch also as this inference coincided 
with the general public impression and prejudice to pre- 
cisely the same effect, it occurred to nobody to dispute or 
seriously to question their validity." 

After discussing such factors as the "disparity in numbers 
among racial groups/' ''the length of residence," "lan- 
guage," "earning power," "civic and political interest," | 
etc., he reaches the following conclusions, favorable to the| 
"new" immigration.^^ 

"First. ... If there is any substantial difference in. 
'quality of assimilability' between the 'older' races and the| 
'newer', it is in favor of the latter. 

. "Second, it is evident that such difference as exists among 
(races is not an inherent racial quality, but a difference be- 
tween the political, social, and economic conditions at the 
time of migration in the country of origin. 

"Third, and broadly corollary, is the fact that the major, 
not to say exclusively, controlling factor in the political 
absorption of the immigrant is length of residence. Thej 
longer the individual lives in America the more likely he is 
to seek active membership therein. . . . Sixth, is the evi- 
y dent influence of social and economic conditions in this 
country as they practically affect the individual. . . . 
Racial groups show a slower desire for citizenship and a 
lower rate of naturalization while they are employed in 
the more poorly paid industries." 

Very few students of immigration who are advocates of 
restriction maintain that there is any difference of inherent 
racial qualities between the old and the new immigration 
to this country, other things being equal, or that one 
nationality is "superior" to another. They have contended 
and still argue, however, that the new immigration is not 
as easily assimilated for the very reasons set forth by Gavit 
in his conclusions, since he grants that the other things are 
not equal. 

The advocates of restriction argue that it is because the 

'"Pp. 252-4. 



I BACK TO 1890 229 

'(i new immigration has come in such large numbers since 
1890; because there exists such a contrast in the economic, 
political and social background in the countries of origin ; 
because the new immigration has proved to be relatively 
I unstable; and because it has tended of necessity to seek 

reemployment in the poorly paid industries demanding un- 

1- skilled labor — for these very reasons we need restrictions 
against it. They readily grant that had the new immigra- 

t tion come in smaller numbers it is likely that no such prob- 
lems of assimilation and naturalization would have come 

rinto existence. They contend further that the solution to 

f ' the problem is not to pour more oil on the fire but to check 
I the new immigration in order that we may take the steps 

!! necessary to eliminate the '^foreign colonies'^ in our large 
I cities by the admission to citizenship of truly assimilated 

ij Americans. Regardless of the contrasting interpretations 
of the data set forth in the above tables and the merits of 
. the arguments, it is a fact beyond question that the above 
! statistics were influential in crystallizing opinion against 
( the new immigration. 

\ During the World War something like one-sixth of our 
I army was foreign-born. The mental tests which were given 
• to nearly two million soldiers brought out some highly in- 
. teresting and significant differences between these foreign- 
I born soldiers in our army and the native-born Americans, 
I and also between the various parts of the foreign-born con- 
tingent. Writing in the Journal of Heredity, Mr. Paul 
i Popenoe stated: "If the mental age of 20 years be taken 
as the point attained by a very intelligent adult, and 16 
years as the average normal adult of white American stock, 
the relative standing of the various groups is at once appar- 
ent. The officers form a group better than the average, as 
! one would expect. . . . 

'The Canadian contingent probably differs little in racial 
antecedents from the bulk of the old white American stock ; 
and its average mental age of 13.29 years is not greatly 
different from that which the whole white draft would 
show, if the foreign-born elements were subtracted from it. 


For the present purpose, it would perhaps not be far fron 
right to class the Canadians as also native-born white 
Americans — as many of them in fact are. 

"Passing this group the average soon begins to declinet 
Great Britain stands at thirteen years — and the inclusioni| 
of the Irish in this classification tends to pull down thi&| 


p p ^ ro oj c3 ^oi uicSS /^ 

^ 01 ' In ' > 01 ' 01 ' 01 ' 'o % ■ 


13. 29 YRS. j CANADA 





11 .19 YRS. I ITALY 



Attention is called to the extremely low score made by men in the 
American Army draft from certain foreign countries and to the fact that 
the average adult negro showed only the intelligence of the average 1 en- 
year-old white schoolboy. These figures applied to immigration would seem 
to have a very definite bearing on the new immigration laws limiting the 
relative number of immigrants from different countries. 

average. If Ireland were excluded, England and Scotland 
together would make much the same sort of showing that 
Canada does. 

"After the Scandinavian countries and the former 'Cen- 
tral Empires', which are but little below the American 
average, the drop becomes rapid. The younger men of 
Grecian birth measured below the average mentality of a 
twelve-year-old American school boy; the larger contin- 


C 93,965 



n 597 

S 573 


BACK TO 1890 


80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 % "'cS?.** 












RUSSIA 2,340 


ITALY 4.007 






I Here the average mentalitj^ of the white male population of the United 
'States is taken as zero. At the right of this line, in black, is shown the 
')ercentage of foreign-born drafted men above the American mental average; 
it the left, percentage below the American average. 

gents of Russia and Italy fall still farther, until the Italians 
are not far above the level (10.37 years) of the American 
['negro, or of a white adult who is of 'dull mentality'. . . . 
I "It is apparent that, aside from English-speaking coun- 
tries, only Holland and Germany made contributions that 
averaged fairly well with the bulk of the American popula- 


tion. And worst of all the proportion of immigrants fron i 
these countries during the last quarter of a century ha , 
been small. The great bulk of the recent immigration t( 
the United States has been made up of Slavic and Mediter 
ranean peoples; and the startlingly inferior quality of thes 
immigrants, from a psychological point of view, has bee' 
rarely more strikingly shown than in these army return 
It is clear, as special students of immigration have Ion 
asserted, that the South Italians, Poles and Russians wh 
have been imported in such large quantities during the pac 
few decades, to furnish American industry with chea 
manual labor, represent an extremely inferior racial con 
tribution, measured by existing American standards. . . 

. . . The general trend of these draft figures is clear, in- 
escapable, and incontrovertible. It shows in a most strik- 
ing way that the average of American immigrants during tht 
last quarter of a century is below that of the native-bori 
white population; and that the average of the countries 
which are sending over most of the immigrants, is ever 
lower still. This last average is, indeed, so deplorabl} 
low that it is a fair and serious question whether the Unitec 
States can eugenically afford to admit any more such aver- 
age immigrants. Should not the American policy be thai 
of admitting all who are superior to the American average 
and no others?" 

In an Article in the North American Review for May , 
1922 on ''Mental Tests for Immigrants," Dr. Arthur i 
Sweeney analyzed the army tests, in order to discover the 
facts concerning the desirability of certain types of im- 
migrants.^^ He wrote as follows: 

''While we can measure objectively the physical qualifica- 
tions of the immigrant, we have had no yardstick with, 
which to form an accurate estimate of his intellectual and 
moral side, as well as those other intangible qualities which 
are essential to good citizenship. 

^ For another article on this subject see "Higher Mental and Physical 
S^'ln(Iil^(is for Immigrants" by Professor Robert DoC. Ward in Scicntifici 
Monthly, November, 1924, Vol. IX, pp. 533-547. ; 

BACK TO 1890 


"The psychological tests . . . have furnished us with the 
ecessary yardstick to measure the desirability of the im- 
jiigrant. The same test will reveal to us, with relative 
recision, those hidden qualities which will demonstrate 
he fitness of the intending immigrant for citizenship in 
'his country, and will exclude those who are unfit. The 
irmy tests rated men according to their mental age, and 
lassified them into groups. The educational and indus- 
rial capacity of these groups was determined, and they 
^ ere assigned to positions according to their ability. The 
)erformance of these men during their months of service 
n their various duties corresponded very nearly to their 
)sychological ratings, and confirmed the accuracy and value 
I i)f the tests. The tests revealed the intellectual endowment 
|j)f the men, and also, to a large degree, determined the 
I other qualities of a soldier, such as initiative, reliability, 
Hadaptability, and obedience. . . . 

I 'Those examined for the Army were grouped according 
I to their mental age as follows: D- very inferior, 7 to 9 
years; D, inferior, 9 to 11 years; C-, low average, 11 to 13 
years; C, average, 13 to 14.5 years; C+, high average, 14.5 
to 16 years; B, superior, 16 to 18 years; A, very superior, 
18 + years. 

'The need of some means of excluding the unfit that shall 
be more effective than past measures is forced upon us by 
the revelations of the Army examinations. In our Army 
360,000 men of foreign birth were put through the test, 
Kvith the startling result that 45 per cent were found to be 
below 11 years of mental age and were grouped in the in- 
ferior and very inferior classes. This fact is startling 
enough, but fades into insignificance when we interpret it 
ilas relating to the countries from which most of our im- 
I migrants come. The table given below is self-explanatory. 
K(See Memoirs of National Academy of Sciences, Vol. XV.) 
I "It will be seen that the percentage of foreign-born who 
•fare found to be in the D and D- classes, with a mental age 
of less than 11 years, is 45.6 per cent. Of the 360,000 re- 
cruits of foreign birth upon whose examination these fig- 




C + 


C — 


D — 

Lf and 

XJ — 























































































































































Average foreign 

Average white 

1 1 
1 .1 


1 .o 



14 S 










ures are based, 164,160 were of such low intelligence tha 
I they graded in occupation lower than the common laborer 
and were those whose work required constant supervision 
In the Army they were not considered to be good soldie 
material, but were largely assigned to pioneer battalion 
for work that required muscular rather than menta 

''Equally interesting and suggestive is the low percentage* 
of the higher intelligence group of A and B, reaching only 
4 per cent. This group shows the small percentage of in 
telligent people of foreign birth as compared with the per 
centage of 12.1 found in the general white draft, composec 
of all recruits in the Army except the colored races. Cer 
tainly it is evident that the number of immigrants capabl( 
of understanding the duties and obligations, as well as th( 
opportunity for progress, which our citizenship entails is 
alarmingly small. 

'Tt will also be found that immigration from eastern anc 
southern Europe is more undesirable than from other parts 
of that continent. We can gauge the desirability of im- 

BACK TO 1890 


(ligrants by the relative proportion of those in A and B 
iasses, and by the number in D and D minus. We can not 
sriously be opposed to immigrants from Great Britain, 
[oUand, Canada, Germany, Denmark and Scandinavia, 
''here the proportion of the higher groups is above 4 per 
!snt and reaching a maximum of 19 per cent, as in the case 
f England. We can, however, strenuously object to im- 
migration from Italy, with its proportion at the lower end 
f the scale of 63.4 per cent; of Russia with 60.4; of Poland 
1/ith 69.9; of Greece with 43.6; and of Turkey with 41.6 
)er cent. The Slavic and Latin countries show a marked 
lontrast in intelligence with the western and northern ' 
European group. ... 

"As a result of our previous negligence in selection of im- 
inigrants we have populated this country with hordes of 
[he unfit, who are unadaptable to our requirements of 
itizenship. The census of 1920 reveals that out of a total 
Ivhite population of 94,820,915 the number born in foreign 
countries was 13,712,754. If we apply to this latter number 
the ratings as to intelligence found by the psychological 
lest in the Army, 14.8 per cent of foreign-born being in D 
ninus class, the number would be 2,029,484. Those rated 
f& class D (30.1 per cent) would number 3,927,538. This 
Drings the total of these two classes, who are rated as hav- 
ing a mental age of 11 years or less, to 5,957,026. It would 
be interesting if there were some figures showing what pro- 
portion of this large number took some part in industry and 
production, and what proportion were dependent, criminal, 
or worthless; but there are no present adequate means of 
determining these facts. The presumption being that the 
ligher the intellectual status the more efficient the human 
machine, the inference follows that this large portion of 
pur population are little fitted to work or vote, and tend to 
become burdens upon society, either as dependents or mis- 
demeanants. . . . 

"We are being swamped with the offscourings of Europe. 
Those at the lower end of the intellectual scale have 
brought to us their social customs, their language, their 
jpolitical ideals. They cannot assimilate our ideals. Their 


adaptability to their new surroundings is limited. Thei - 
cannot become citizens in the highest meaning of that wonj "■ 
They cannot enter into the spirit of American life. Thei ■ 
add little except numbers to the body politic. They add t- 
the burdens of State and municipality, and render more diff j - 
cult and complex the administration of law and order. . . i 

''We do not need the ignorant, the mentally feeble, thi 
moron. We already suffer from the presence of too man;! 
whose low mentality leads them into pauperism, crime, se| 
offenses, and dependency. . . . We must forget those sen I 
timental by-words, like 'a refuge for the oppressed of othe^ 
nations,' unless we want to be oppressed by the burden o( 
ignorance and degeneracy which such a catchword invites, i 

Another effort to use the army tests to explain the highe 
scores of the older immigrants was made by C. C. Brig 
ham.^*^ In addition to vigorous criticism from K. Young,- 
M. Hexter and A. Myerson launched an attack againsi 
the army tests but especially against the scientific charac 
ter of Professor Brigham's work. They accuse him o\ 
rank prejudice and propagandizing intent. They criticiz(|| 
the argument that the tests measured native intelligencJI 
and claim that the speed factor was a handicap to the forjl 
eign born and that with increased length of residence thJi 
gain on the Alpha test is greater than the gain on the BetJI 
test, thus showing the influence of education and familiaril 
ity with the culture of America. ||| 

Another attack against the arguments of the advocateijl 
of restriction who believe that the ''old" immigration ill 
more easily assimilated and hence is more desirable waf- 
made by W. Bagley.^^ He argued that a high correlatior 
exists between the quality of the educational systems ir 
given areas and the test achievements of men from the cor- 
responding localities. Thus, he claims that it is educatior 

^ Brigham, C. C, A Study of American Intelligence. 
**Younff, K, Science, Vol. LVII, No. 1484, June 8, 1923, pp. 660-670. 
Hexter, M., and Myerson, A., "A StAidy in Probable Error," Menta\ 
11 y (dene, Vol. VIII, January, 1924. 

Barley, W., "The Army Tests and the Pro-Nordic Propaganda," Ed\ 
Rev., April, 1924. 

BACK TO 1890 


ather than pure native ability that is measured by mental 
^ests. He believes, therefore, that in general in view of the 
i)ossibility of unfair sampling and of the influence of cul- 
tural factors of the test scores, the superiority of the Nordic 
Intelligence must be regarded as unproved. 
; As already indicated, very few of the advocates of re- 
itriction argue that the Nordic races are "superior" to those 
)f Southern or Eastern Europe and hence most of them 
;rant the soundness of such argument as that set forth by 
Jagley. Most advocates of restriction will concede that 
iVofessor Brigham, in his study referred to above, over- 
ooked the sharp differentiation between the intelligence of 
'immigrant groups" and the intelligence of "races." They 
irgue, however, that the lower scores on the intelligence 
;ests by the more recent immigrants is a fact, although they 
joncede that the reasons must be sought iji factors related 
:o the passage of time and virtually unrelated to race.^^ 
rhey contend, howevet, that the existence of such factors 
justifies the restriction of the types or groups of immigrants 
j^rhich have come from Southern and Eastern Europe in 
recent years. 

I C. Kirkpatrick is of the opinion that the studies deal- 
ing with the children of immigrants in the schools are far 

re significant than the results of the army tests given 
to adults. He points out that the studies of Young,^^ Mur- 
dock,^^ Feingold,^^ Brown, Berry,^^ Pitner,^^ and Col- 

"For an excellent analysis of this view see Neifeld, M, R., "The Race 
jEIypothesis," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 32, pp. 423-432 (Novem- 
ber, 1926). 

"Kirkpatrick, C, ''Selective Immigration," Journal of Social Forces, 
Mar., 1925. 

^ Young, K., "Mental Differences in Certain Immigrant Groups," Univer- 
nty of Oregon Publication, Vol. I, No. XI, July, 1922. 

^ Murdock, K., ''Race Differences in New York City," School and Society, 
|XI, 1920. 

"Feingold, G. A., "Intelligence of the First Generation of Immigrant 
jGroups," Jr. Ed. Psych., Vol. XV, No. 2, p. 65 ff., Feb., 1924. 
['"BrowTi, G. L., "Intelligence as Related to Nationality," Jr. Ed. Re- 
search, Apr., 1922. pp. 324-327. 

" Berry, C. S.. "The Classification by Tests of Intelligence of Ten Thou- 
sand First Grade Pupils," Jr. Ed. Research, Oct., 1922. 

j "Pinter, R., and Keller, R., "Intelligence Tests of Foreign Children," Jr. 
Ed. Psych., Aug., 1922, p. 214 ff. 


vin,^* for the most part show decided differences in tL 
test achievement of children of different national group 
although certain of the writers are inclined to feel that th 
language factor may have played a part, especially whe 
comparisons are made with American children of Americar [ 
born parents. 

He then states, "In general the showing of the recent in: 
migrant stocks is unfavorable, although there are several 
exceptions. While important differences in the innatj 
qualities of different national groups may, and very likell 
do exist, it must be pointed out that individual selection ij 
better than group selection and it is this simple fact tha| 
was ignored by the enactors of the recent immigratio 

Referring to the Act of 1924 and the evidence on which i, 
is based Woolston wrote thus:^^ "Instead of specifying thj 
qualities considered desirable the law favors those natioHi 
whose representatives we like, and debars others by genera 
provisions. It seems to me that such procedure involves 
threefold error. 

"First, it disregards the wide range of individual diffeE 
ences among the members of any group. ... 

"In the second place, such generalization tends to confus 
racial traits and cultural development. . . . 

"Confusion is worse confounded when both physical anv 
mental development are identified with country of birth.J 

Bernard has written thus on the application of mentaj 
tests to racial groups.^^ "The intelligence thus measure^ 
is only the acquired intelligence within the limits of ini 
herited capacity and not the inherited capacity itself. ThI 
degree to which the actual indices of intelligence measures 
for a racial group approximates to the actual inherited 
capacity will depend on the environmental factors of hom| 

^ Colvin, S. S., and Allen, R. D., "Mental Tests and Linguistic Ability, 
Jr. Ed. Psych., Vol. XIV, Jan, 1923. p. 1 ff. 

^Sce also article by Mead, M., "The Methodology of Racial Testing, 
Vol. 31 (1925-6), Amcr. Journal of Sociology, pp. 657-667. 

*^ Woolston, H., "Wanted — An Immigration Policy," Journal of Socio 
Forces, Vol. 2 (1923-4), pp. 666^70. , 
Bernard, Introduction to Social Psychology, p. 224. 

BACK TO 1890 


training, cultural contacts, motivation, opportunity, etc., 
available to the members of the group." *^ 

From our discussion it seems possible to harmonize the 
views of those who favor restriction of immigration with 
the views of those who deny that one race is superior to 
another. The advocates of restriction can and should grant 
[that some of their number drew unfortunate conclusions 
from the army tests. Yet it does not follow from granting 
the psychic equality of the races that our political opinions 
must change or that restriction of immigration is not jus- 
tifiable. To disapprove the superiority of one race over 
another does not eliminate the necessity for the restriction 
of immigrants with a different cultural background. In 
other words, we have had to adopt political devices that 
will roughly admit immigrants in proportion to our ability 
to assimilate those with a different cultural development. 

It would seem then that the value of the army tests is 
to be found in the evidence presented of the differences in 
Cultural development of the ^^old" and the ^'new'^ immigra- 
ition of today. On this basis it would seem that the "old'* 
immigration is more desirable than the ''new", being more 
easily assimilated because of a cultural background more 
ife 'nearly akin to our own.^^ Whether this view be accepted or 
not as being sound, yet it must be conceded that these army 
31 /tests had great weight with Congress and helped to crystal- 
?lize the sentiment that finally resulted in the enactment 
of the Immigration Act of 1924. 
' Dr. Harry H. Laughlin, of the Eugenics Record Office of 
the Carnegie Institute of Washington, who was appointed 
T texpert eugenics agent of the House Committee on Immigra- 
nt ^tion, studied the biological aspects of immigration and made 
an ''expert" analysis of the metal and the dross in America's 
biodern melting pot. His report to the House Committee, 

il? I *^ For further references see Grant, The Passing of the Great Race; 
Boas, The Mind of Primitive Man; Kroeber and Waterman, Source Book 
in Anthropology, chapters 15-21 ; Park and Miller, Old World Traits 
Transplanted ; Fairchild. Immigration, Ch. XX. A recent and interesting 

&J htudy is N. D. M. Hirsch's ''A Study of Natio-Racial Mental Differences." 
See especially pp. 393-8 (1P26V 
**See Fairchild, op. cit., pp. 451-453. 



November 21, 1922, had such great influence that it i| 
ofen considered the principal basis of the Act of 1924. I < 
is necessary, therefore, to consider it in some detail. 

An institutional survey was made to secure the fact| 
concerning particular types of social degeneracy or in j c 
adequacy of the different racial stocks, or nativity groups* \i 
Having secured the facts in relation to the number of per-j 
sons of each race or nativity group found in custodial ini 
stitutions and listed under a specific diagnosis, and havingj 
previously worked out an expected or quota number foi 
each such diagnostic and racial group, the next step was tcj 
compare the number expected with the number found.*' 
In making such comparisons the divisor was always the 
number expected, or the quota, and the dividend wastj 
always the number actually found by the survey. Thej 
quotient was the quota fulfillment which was expressed ini 
terms of per cent. Thus, if the quota fulfillment of a par- 
ticular racial and diagnostic group is 100 per cent in the. 
table below, it means that for this particular race, in refer-; 
ence to this particular type of degeneracy, the numberi! 
found is exactly the same as the quota or the number ex-| 
pected. If, however, twice as many were found as were 
expected, then the quota fulfillment is 200 per cent. If, 
again, only one-half as many were found as were expected,! 
the quota fulfillment is 50 per cent. Thus, regardless ofl 
the absolute numbers in the different racial and nativity 
groups in the whole population of the United States, it I 
was possible to standardize and to compare the relative ex-i 
treme degeneracy of a specific type among the several racial li 
and nativity groups. i 

To be specific, according to the census of 1910 there wereij 
1,343,125 persons of Italian birth in the United States. 
This group constituted 1.46 per cent of the whole popula- 
tion of the United States at that time. Consequently, if i! 
the Italians in the United States were equally as susceptible 
as all other nativity groups to insanity, of the type which 
we institutionalize in this country, we should expect 1.46 

*Sce Chapter II, pp. 55-56, for the use of such a method prior to 1850 
by Senator Clemens of Alabama. 

I BACK TO 1890 24l 

')er cent of the inmates in all our hospitals for the insane in 
^he United States to be of Italian birth. In the 93 hospitals 
)'or the insane which were covered by Dr. Laughlin's sur- 
rey there were 84,106 inmates. The Italian quota was 1.46 
oer cent of 84,106, or 1,228, which was the number to be 
ixpected. The actual survey found 1,938 persons of Italian 
Dirth in the hospitals for the insane, which was 2.30 per cent 
.nstead of the expected 1.46 per cent. Dividing the number 
found by the number expected, the quota fulfillment was 
Pound to be 157.53 per cent, which means that the Italians 
fulfilled their quota a little more than one and a half times 
in contributing inmates to the hospitals for the insane. 

Granting the soundness of such a method, for the sake of 
Argument, the logical conclusion to be drawn from such 
statistics would seem to be that the differences in institu- 
tional ratios, by races and nativity groups, found by these 
studies represent real differences in social values, which 
represent, in turn, according to Dr. Laughlin, real differences 
in the inborn values of the family stocks from which the 
particular inmates have sprung. If this be true, then it 
would seem that the advocates of restriction were and are 
[right in taking into consideration the stock from which the 
immigrant springs when drafting our restrictive laws on 

This explanation of the methods used to get the results 
'indicated in the table on page 242 should enable us to 
I properly interpret the facts stated therein. 

In the summary of all types of socially inadequates the 
following facts were emphasized by the restrictionists: 

(1) the per cent for the total native white was 91.89, — 
less than what was expected. 

(2) For the total foreign stock it was 125.79 per cent. 

(3) For northwestern Europe it was 130.42, per cent, 

(4) while for Southern and Eastern Europe it was 143.24 
per cent. 

The percentage for northwestern Europe was as high as 
it is due to the Irish immigration, whose quota was found 
I to be 208.84. The quotas for all of the other countries that 
! constitute Northwestern Europe were much lower than the 

O 00 3 2 D 


w o 

<4J O 

r-l IM <M to rH (M 


<a O 

00 Ol it5 O O 


<N O <N O lO i-J t-- O 05 
rHC<»<Nt-rH T-l (M i-l 

rH r-( 0> 
05 <N 
U5 CO Tli 



M< 05 (M 00 <0 
to <M iH 1> rH 
CO iH iH 

lO rH O 

rH (>q 00 CO OS 

CO lO 05 lO Tt< 

1> O O (m' U5 
lO M rH 

CO C<5 OOt^ 

• 00 O • 

• CO o • 
! d '. 


to iH rH IM rH rH 

00 to 
lO rH 

Oi (M O O 
rH if5 O rH O 

iH tOflO »fj 



iH rH 

lO Oi iH o 

iH 00 ifi d 

^ rH 00 to 

irti>t~c<i05'>*coas * 


tdoot^coi-it-^ooio » 

(>JtOt-05lOCOiOtD II 
iH (M (M (M CO iH ") 

3 B 

. >> 


to ^ to 
d d d 
0000 o 

I (M rH t» iH 

CO CO -"Jl rH 

tH rH rH rH (M 

05 O to 00 C55 -"It CO to rH CO CO CO CO CO O CO tO O lO tO O (N O CO 

to r- iH oi CO 00 »c CO CO (N ift 10 to o oic^iior-oco 

ooc^ui td(N t^o6o6d>o-«i5corHodd oot-^r-iio iri-^iNco'doo 

TjioiCT>iOOt^C35tOiOtO ' 

^- o o 

_J U5 

o 00 

rH <M 

00 lO 00 rH ^ , 
iH iH iH Tjl C<l ' 

01 01 

iH d 

00 (M 

CO O iH 00 in to GO <M O O O 00 o 

CO O Tl( TJJ 10 IXM o O O 00 iH O 

d'^<HT)?t>t^c-jddd iHtod 

(M CO iH O 00 00 lO lO 00 0000 

iH CO CO CO m CO iH eO CO iH iH 


iH rH rH rH iH i 


iHCO-if-^OOOtOOOOSt^ Oi"^. 

10 co' iH to H< d d CO d CO ^ o iH CO 

»O-<HC0C0O>O500t-tOtO tO'^''^^ 


rH CO O iH CO lO < 

05 to CO ic to 1 


K o 

rHiHOOt-tOtOOlOtOtO CO-'i'COO 


iotDo6i>o6ddddod eoioooin 

rH CO iH CO rH CO CO rH CO CO -"ii 

tj o 
V. d 


a> rH to t~ r- CO I> t- CO rH CO O O 00 O O CO 


t-^ d ^ d 06 1> to d d codcod d d d d co 



(h O) 

■ s ^ 

0) -tj ai 

J3 C 


. O O) +-> 

be 1^ 


o O i3 

o >- .2 


1^1 s|- 

3^ es Sc. 

«5 £ ft^^. 
> i O rt 

,3 • bccn ; 

rt 3 o 

Wk5 cc -< 

1 U5 ^ t» 00 0> 


BACK TO 1890 


quotas of the countries that make up Southern and Eastern 
Europe. These facts, together with those revealed by the 
;able below, seem to indicate, according to Dr. Laughlin, 
that the inmiigrants from Northwestern Europe are far 
more desirable than the ^'new'^ immigrants from Southern 
Mid Eastern Europe. 

The table below shows, by comparison of quota fulfill- 
naents the relation between the rate of incidence of each 
major type of social inadequacy, on the one hand, and the 
time of immigration of the immigrant stock on the other. 

Comparative Quota Fulfillments in Inadequacies of the Older and More 
Recent Immigrant Stocks, Excluding Living Immigrants. 

Older immigrant 
stock : Native born, 
both parents native 

More recent immi- 
grant stock : 

Native born, one 
or both parents 
foreign bom 






98.88 * 





6. Blind 



7. Deaf 



8. Deformed 





10. All types 




The facts provided by this table seem to indicate that: 
i (a) in so far as (6) blindness and (7) deafness are con- 
icerned, recent immigrant stocks are much sounder than the 

(b) in (9) dependency on the State the two time-groups 
are about even; 

(c) in reference to (1) feeble-mindedness, (2) insanity, 
(3) crime, (4) epilepsy, (5) tuberculosis, and (8) deform- 
ity, the older immigrant stocks are vastly sounder than the 

The charts on page 244 taken together indicate the degree 
of ''quota fulfillment" by each of the groups of immigrants 
studied in the above report.^® 

These three charts are taken from the Survey for Dec. 15, 1923, 

„ 100 •f* 




1 1 


All NoHhwfist Europe 
CD All Southeast tonope 

I Insaniiv 
Z Crime 

3 Feeblemindedness 

4 DependencY 

5 Tuberculosis 

7 AU defecia together 





12 3 4 5 6? 


12 3 4567 

12 3 4 5 6 7 
Russia and 

123 4 567 1234567 

Austria -Hungarf BalKan* 




I 3 4 S 6 7 

Whites born of 
Hntive Parents 

• 2 3456 7 t2345 6 7 12 345 6 7 12 3 4-5 6 7 

Nesrots Creiit Britain Ireland Ccrmant 


These charts indicate the relative contribution by each of the numeri- 
cally important groups of immigrants, studied by Laughlin, to the population 
of institutions for the defective and dependent. The column for dependency 
among Irish immigrants is limited by the depth of the chart ; it should run 
one inch higher. The upper chart compares all the groups from Northwest 
Europe with all those from Southeast Europe for each of the seven cate- 
gories of disability. The charts are based on the Laughlin data. 


BACK TO 1890 


The classification below will throw more light on the 



1. Ireland 

2. Russia-Finland 

3. Scandinavia 


1. Balkans 

2. Italy 

3. Russia-Finland 

Fee b le-mindedness 

1. Russia-Finland 

2. Great Britain 

3. Italy and Balkans 


1. Ireland 

2. Great Britain 

3. Balkans 


1. Balkans 

2. Scandinavia 

3. Russia-Finland 


1. Great Britain 

2. Russia-Finland 

3. Ireland 

1. Ireland. 

All Defects Together 
2. Russia-Finland. 

3. Balkans. 

It is of interest to note that no nation that supplies the 
*'old'' immigration comes under "crinie". That dependency 
is high among the ''old" immigration would seem to be 
proof of its inability to compete successfully with the 
''new" immigration and would seem to establish the point 
that even on very low wages, due to the law standards of 
living, there is little dependency among the "new" immi- 
grants. While dependency is bad, yet under existing 
circumstances low standards of living are worse, due to 
detrimental effects on American labor as well as for social 

Concerning pauperism the following table from Dr. 
Laughlin's report presents some striking and possibly sig- 
nificant figures of the relative incidence of the tendency 
throughout those States of the Union where the mass of 
our foreign and unassimilated elements are located: 



paupers per 100,000 

paupers per 100,000 

native born 

foreign born 



New England 



Middle Atlantic 



East North Central 




In this connection it is interesting to turn to the highly 
significant conclusions of Doctors May and Pollock, quoted 
from a New York hospital bulletin of April 12, 1912, ab- . 
stracted by Dr. C. B. Davenport and quoted by Dr. Laugh- ( 
lin in his testimony in April, 1920, before the Committeei 
on Immigration and Naturalization in the House of Rep-^ 
resentatives of the United States: 

The conclusions to which Doctors May and Pollock have I 
come are: 

That the number of foreign-born insane in the State hos- 
pitals is steadily increasing. | 

That the foreign-born population of the State contrib- 1 
utes a relatively much larger number of patients to theij 
State hospital than the native born. i 

That although the rate of insanity among the Italians is<i 
low, this nationality contributes an unusually large propor- 
tion of patients to the State hospitals for the criminal in-* 

That the average total hospital residence of the foreign- 
born insane patients is 9.85 years. 

That the first admission of 1911 shows a rate of insanity 
V 22 times as great among the foreign-born population of 
the State as among the native born. 

That the rate of insanity among the foreign-born of New 
York City is 2.5 times that of the native born. 

That about one-fifth of the foreign-born first admissions 
of 1911 entered hospitals before having been in the State 
five years. 

That the larger part of the immigrants who are admitted 
to the State hospitals within five years after entering come 
from Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Russia, and the largest 
percentages of foreign-born illiterates are found among the 
same nationalities. 

Dr. Wm. J. Mayo said in an address at the Boston City 
Hospital, November 14, 1923, before the new act was 
passed : 

'The alien is a public health problem, just as he is a 
social problem, and the pubfic hospital sees the dark side 

BACK TO 1890 


3f this picture. In the American of several generations, 
he doctrine of moral obligation has become thoroughly in- 
rained. In Southern Europe the Oriental point of view 
more or less prevails that no obligation which is not en- 
orcible exists. The laxity of the conduct of the law in the 
nited States, the slowness of Justice, and the extraordi- 
ary latitude allowed the offender against the community, 
ive the criminal more than a sporting chance to escape 
punishment and have exposed the administrators of the 
law to the contempt of the class of offenders brought to us 
in recent years by immigration. And these are the people 
with whom our public hospitals are overcrowded. Our 
'courts have been filled with alien law-breakers until the 
people have arisen in righteous indignation and reduced the 
number of immigrants to three per cent of the number al- 
ready here from each country. If the percentage system of 
immigration in effect in 1890 could be reverted to, as has 
been advised, a much more desirable class of citizens would 
be brought from the countries that gave birth to the United 
States and its concept of government." 

This report of Dr. Laughlin's thus claims to prove that 
the biological laboratory is a far more valuable basis for the 
study of immigration than are the improvisations of the 
sentimentalists. He argued that our alien population from 
northern Europe contributes far less in proportion to our 
''socially inadequate,'^ whether the inadequacies be innate 
or not, than does that from Central and Mediterranean 
Europe. His report thus substantiated the conviction 
that was becoming more and more fixed in the minds of 
those favoring restriction that immigration from Northern 
and Western Europe, which for want of a better or more 
precise term is usually referred to as ^'Nordic," furnishes 
the best materials for building the American nation. By 
admitting strains far removed from the '^Nordic" peoples, 
in race, in history, and in cultural ideals, the advocates of 
restriction argued that the United States has already 
tended to become in certain sections like Central Europe, 
a collection of unassimilable blocs, with all the social and 


political problems that necessarily follow. Dr. Laughlin 
investigations, therefore, supported the contention of th( 
restrictionists that the great mistake of the last thirty year.' 
has been the admission of so many persons from Southerr 
and Eastern Europe.* 

The restrictionists have stated, however, that such re- 
ports unfavorable to the "new'' immigration do not neces- 
sarily mark any nation or race as inferior to any other. 
They merely assert that this report and those related to it 
simply seem to establish the point that certain races are not 
as assimilable in America as others and that the "new" im- 
migration is largely made up of such races. 

One authority states it thus:^^ "It is unfortunate that 
attempts to select settlers should be regarded as a declara- 
tion of superiority by the nation attempting it. For prac- 
tical reasons the great immigrant-receiving countries have 
found it necessary to decide what their dominant racial 
strain shall be. This does not mean an arrogant trampling 
underfoot of other strains, and should not be so regarded." 

The report of the committee on selective immigration of 
the Eugenics Committee of the United States,^^ was to the 
effect that "It is not here a question of racial superiority of 
northwestern Europeans or of racial inferiority of south- 
eastern Europeans. It is simply a question as to which of 
'these two groups of aliens as a whole is better fitted by 
tradition, political background, customs, social organiza- 
tion, education and habits of thought to adjust itself to 
American institutions and to American economic and social 
conditions." | 

Dr. Laughlin's report has been subjected to vigorous 
criticisms. According to Professor Gillam an examination* 
of Dr. Laughlin's data and methods of analysis proves his' 
conclusion that "the recent immigrants present a highers 
percentage of inborn socially inadequate qualities than do"" 

♦See also Hirsch, N. D. M., A Study of Nntio-Racial Mental Differences,. 
for an excellent investigation of this problem. | 

MacLean, Modern Immigration, p. 226. ' 

Hearings of the House Committee on Immigration, Dec. 26, 1923-Jan. 
19, 1924, p. 837. ' 

BACK TO 1890 


ihe older stocks" to be unfounded. He questions whether 
fhe enumeration of defectives in institutions reveals the 
fes )roportional occurrence of these inadequacies among the 
mrious race and nativity groups; whether the data really 
iisclose significant differences in occurrence among the 
rarious races and nationalities; and finally, whether the in- 
idequacies are really innate. 
Professor Gillam stated: 

"(1) His data are incomplete and statistically biased, as 
)roved by the relatively large probable errors of the sam- 
)les chosen. 

''(2) The quotas for the various races and nationalities 
Eire derived without proper regard for the homogeneity of 
the facts compared. 

i "(3) The statistics disclose larger differential ratios be- 
tween the older immigrant stocks and the natives than be- 
tween the recent and older immigrant stocks. 

^'(4) Quotas for recent immigrant stocks are actually 
ower than the quotas for the older stocks, native and im- 
migrant, in seven out of the nine inadequacies studied. 

^'(5) Finally, tests by the methods of correlation not only 
further prove the unreliability of Dr. Laughlin's data, they 
also remove any possible support for his assumption that 
social inadequacies are racially inborn values." 

H. S. Jennings has stated that even if Dr. Laughlin's 
[data be accepted it is apparent that the alien stocks do not 
Icompare unfavorably with the native stocks in every trait. 
|Furthermore, he points out that Ireland takes first place as 
a contributor to both insanity and dependency and to all 
defects taken together, while Austria-Hungary contributes 
fewer defectives than any of the European countries either 
North or South. 

C. Kirkpatrick is of the opinion that ^'it is certainly 
true that since only a small proportion of the defectives in 

"Gillam, J. M., "Statistics and the Immigration Problem," American 
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 30 (1924-25), pp. 29-48. 

"Jennings, H. S., "Undesirable Aliens," Survey, Dec. 15, 1923. 
j ^ Kirkpatrick, C, "Selective Immigration," Journal of Social Forces, 
March, 1925. 


the United States are in institutions, it is questionable 
reason from the proportions which have received instit 
tional care to the characteristics of entire immigrant group^j 
. . . The best of the Southern Europeans are far bette; 
than the poorest of the Northern Europeans and while th 
present law may have a certain biological validity, bein 
based on group selection, it is a most clumsy instrument 
with which to obtain a desired end. The sheep may not b 
separated efficiently from the goats on the basis of geogi 

Dr. Antonio Stella has criticized Dr. Laughlin's report iis! 
some detail.^" He argues that ^'only the negative feature^ 
of immigration are presented. Not the slightest mentioii 
is made of the great incalculable contribution which th 
newer immigration has made towards the growth, developi 
ment and cultural life of this country.^' He then argues 
that the figures in Dr. Laughlin's report do not correspon(| 
with our every-day experience, for the reason that som'* 
V states do not provide institutional care for defectives to th 
extent that other states do so. The effect of this is "t 
make everything look worse than it really is for the new 
immigrants," since these are for the most part found i 
states which have numerous institutions for defectives. 
Other causes of error are pointed out to be as follows: 
The failure to take into account the difference o' 
the various prevailing age groups in the foreign and nativ 
population in computing the incidence of crime, feeble 
mindedness and insanity, conditions in which age is a grea 

"(2) The too small and arbitrarily selected number of in-| 
stitutions from which the returns were obtained. ... 

... (4) The total lack of information regarding the| 
number of years these 'socially inadequate' immigrantsj 
have resided in America. ... | 

^'(5) More importance should have been given to the eni 
vironmental causes of 'social inadequacies' as blindness,! 

"Stolla, A., Some Aspects of Italian Immigration to the United States^' 
pp. 105-122. 

BACK TO 1890 



nsanity, tuberculosis, etc. In many cases tuberculosis 
imong immigrants is an occupational disease. 

"(6) The generalization of the term 'social inadequacy' 
s grossly misleading when the statistics are used to show 
he inferiority of one race to another, as to its qualifications 
'or admission to America. . . . 

. . (8) The report, while showing a serious condition 
imong the foreign born, does not prove that the 'recent im- 
nigrants from Southeastern Europe as a whole present a 
ligher percentage of inborn socially inadequate qualities 
han do the older stocks'. If anything, these statistics 
would seem to show that some of the worst types of social 
nadequacy are found to be most prevalent among the im- 
migrants from the North." 
Unquestionably there is justification for such criticisms of 
r. Laughlin's report as those indicated above. Yet these 
criticisms hardly justify the conclusion of Dr. Stella that 
'the errors in the report are so serious as to render it value- 
ess as a source of information." For, whether the inade- 
quacies studied are innate to a group or race as a whole, or 
not — the facts seem to indicate the contrary — nevertheless, 
the concentration of the newer immigrants in certain sec- 
tions of this country under different environmental condi- 
tions, socially, industrially and economically, has created 
problems which must be solved. Drastic restriction would 
seem to be the first step in such a solution. Dr. Laughlin's 
report has been of great value in concentrating attention on 
the existing conditions in those states in which the immi- 
grants tend to settle. If it did no more than this, it has 
not proved worthless. But, whatever its merit, without 
doubt it had great weight with Congress in the enactment 
of the existing legislation. 

Formulating their conclusions largely from these tests, 
reports and opinions of authorities on immigration, it 
seemed to the advocates of restriction that the solution to 
the problem was a more drastic restriction of the new im- 
migration. Indeed, many felt that if this could be ob- 
tained, the problem would be largely solved, or could be 




solved in time. For, as President Lowell of Harvard says:^- 
*'It is, indeed, largely a perception of the need of homo- 
xgeneity, as a basis for popular government and the pubh( 
opinion on which it rests, that justifies democracies in re- 
sisting the influx in great numbers of a widely differenli 
race." Professor Garner has pointed out that it is the dut> j 
of the State to secure ethnic or racial homogeneity in its ■ 
population. He stated, ''Ethnic homogeneity coupled with i 
geographic unity are undoubtedly among the most powerful i 
factors in maintaining political solidarity, and it should be | 
the ambition of every State to organize itself so as to secure ' 
these elements of national strength and stability. . . . The ] 
State should strive by all proper means to render its popula- = 
tion ethnically homogeneous and thereby remove one of the | 
most potent sources of national discord. . . . Self-preserva- 
tion is the first law of nature/' 

Yet, ''of all the nations in the world which have firsi 
hand knowledge of large emigrant or immigrant move- 
ments, the United States is the one nation which has nol 
regulated this movement of peoples to its own needs 
Italy's admirable emigration laws are carefully framed tc 
suit her own needs. Hungary's emigration system wai 
planned to build up the port of Fiume, bring wealth bad 
to Hungary and keep Hungarians in America from bein^ 
naturalized. Bulgaria, on the other hand, wishing to keef 
her citizens at home, forbade steamship agents in the coun- 
try. Rumania puts a secret mark on the passports of Jews 
which prevents them once they have left Rumania, fron 
getting vises which will permit them to return to Rumania j 
again. Poland facilitates the emigration of Jews, and hin- 
ders the emigration of the infinitely more desirable Polisl 
peasant. All foreign countries develop laws which accru( 
to their own benefit and meet the peculiar needs of th( 
different countries. For the United States to delay doin^ 
so is suicidal." 

" Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government, p. 35. 
" Gamer, Introduction to Political Science, pp. 51-52. 
^'^ Roberts, Why Europe Leaves Home, p. 120. 

BACK TO 1890 


In a brief magazine article, the author suggested as early 
is 1922 that a simple, effective solution to the problem 
l^ould be to adopt the census of 1890 instead of 1910 or 
1920 as the basis for permanent legislation and future per- 
ientage laws.^® It is true that the three per cent law based 
n the census of 1910 was primarily quantitative, but it was 
levertheless qualitative to the extent that it kept from our 
pores several millions of "undesirables" which this coun- 
ty could afford to do without. The one thing the three 
ier cent law did was to prove that numerical limitation by 
i quota system is the most effective check we have been 
ible to put on the tide of immigration. However, in the 
mergency, the census of 1910 was adopted merely because 
he facts desired were easily obtained on that basis. It was 
lever intended to be the basis of a permanent percentage 
aw. In Chapter VI we noted that the three per cent law 
lid check the ''new'^ immigration to some extent, yet such 
estriction was not based on historical facts. The two per 
^ent law based on the census of 1890 limits qualitatively 
a much higher degree as well as numerically within safe 
)Oundaries. It automatically closes the door to all but a 
few thousand "new" immigrants each year, yet it does not 
•xclude to a detrimental point those immigrants from 
Xorthern and Western Europe who may desire to come and 
who are easily assimilated. It is a practical, American 
solution. It will give us time to educate and assimilate 
those aliens now here, a task of gigantic proportions, re- 
quiring many years. Such a provision would seem to be 
■eminently fair and equitable, as we shall indicate in the 
conclusion of this chapter. Yet it raised a storm of protest 
among the nationals whose quotas it reduced. But this is 
the invariable effect of any legislative proposals that are 
frankly framed for the benefit of America and Americans 
rather than for Europe and Europeans. And yet, as in 
the case of any bill, the character of the opposition may be 
the strongest kind of evidence of intrinsic merit. 

" Garis, R. L., "The Immigration Problem — A Simple American Solu- 
tion," Scrib7ier's Magazine, Sept., 1922. 


The new immigration Act provided that the Secretary ( 
State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary ( 
Labor shall prepare a statement for the President of th 
United States showing the quota of each nationality er 
titled to immigration visas under the law. 

Each of the Secretaries named appointed two represents 
tives on an immigration quota committee to prepare th 
basic statistical material upon which such a report coul 
be based. The work of this committee was begun May 31 < 
1924, and the report to the respective secretaries was date 
June 19, 1924. The report of the immigration quota com 
mittee to the three secretaries was in part as follows: 

The committee which you designated as your representatives to detei 
mine the population bases upon which to compute the quotas of immj 
grants from different nationalities, as provided for in the immigratio 
act of 1924, have completed their task and have the honor to subm] 
herewith a statement of the population bases representing the number o 
foreign-born individuals of each nationality resident in continental Unitef 
States, as determined by the census of 1890. 

In case of a country recognized by the United States but for which ■ 
separate enumeration was not made in the census of 1890, the committe 
acting as your representatives have, as is required by section 12 of th 
immigration act, estimated the number of individuals born in such countr 
and resident in continental United States in 1890. Similarly in the case c' 
a colony or dependency existing before 1890 but for which a separat 
enumeration was not made in the census of 1890 and which was nc ' 
included in the enumeration for the country to which such colony ci 
dependency belonged, and in the case of territory administered under . 
protectorate, the committee have estimated the number of individual! 
born in such colony, dependency, or territory and resident in continent^' 
United States in 1890, and have included the number in the populatio:' 
basis for the country to which such colony or dependency belongs ci 
which administers such protectorate. 

Also in the case of changes in political boundaries in foreign countrie; 
occurring subsequently to 1890 and resulting in the creation of new couDt| 
tries, the Governments of which are recognized by the United States, | 
in the establishment of self-governing dominions, or in the transfer c 
territory from one country to another, such transfer being recognized b; 
the United States, or in the surrender by one country of territory, th 
transfer of which has not been recognized by the United States, or in th 
administration of territories under mandates, your committee, as the la^ 
requires, have estimated the number of individuals resident in continents 
United States in 1890 who were born within the area included in such ne\ 
countries or self-governing dominions or in such territory as transferred oj 
surrendered or administered under a mandate and have revised, so far a 
necessary, the population basis for each country involved in any sucf 
change of political boundary. I 

BACK TO 1890 


The classes of political divisions for which the committee have submitted 
opulation bases, are as follows: 

(1) Independent countries in existence in 1890. 

(2) Colonies, dependencies, or self-governing dominions for which sepa- 
te enumeration was made in the census of 1890. 

(3) Independent countries which have come into existence since 1890. 

(4) Self-governing dominions coming into existence since 1890. 

(5) Surrendered territories coming into existence since 1890. 

(6) Territories administered under mandates. 

Since the law provides that the minimum quota shall be 100, your 
mmittee have thought it unnecessary to estimate more exactly the 
umber of persons born in a particular country or territory and resident in 
mtinental United States in 1890 in those cases where it was evident that 
8 total number could not exceed 5,000 and therefore would not yield a 
tiota of more than 100 on a 2 per cent basis. 

On June 30 the three Secretaries transmitted to the 
resident their report based upon the action of the quota 
ommittee and the President the same day issued the fol- 
Dwing proclamation : 

By the President of the United States of America 

Whereas it is provided in the act of Congress approved May 26, 1924, 
ititled "An act to limit the immigration of aliens into the United States, 
nd for other purposes" that — 

"The annual quota of any nationality shall be two per centum of 
the number of foreign-born individuals of such nationality resident in 
continental United States as determined by the United States census 
of 1890, but the minimum quota of any nationality shall be 100 (Sec 

"For the purposes of this Act nationality shall be determined by 
country by birth * * * (sec. 12 (a)). 

"The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secre- 
tary of Labor, jointly, shall, as soon as feasible after the enactment of 
this act, prepare a statement showing the number of individuals of the 
various nationalities resident in continental United States as deter- 
mined by the United States census of 1890, which statement shall be 
the population basis for the purposes of subdivision (a) of section 11 
(sec. 12(b)). 

"Such officials shall, jointly, report annually to the President, the 
quota of each nationality under subdivision (a) of section 11, together 
with the statements, estimates, and revisions provided for in this sec- 
tion. The President shall proclaim and make known the quotas so 
reported, (sec. 12(e)). 

And whereas satisfactory evidence has been presented to me that the 
lecretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor, 
mrsuant to the authority conferred upon them in the act of Congress 


approved May 26, 1924, have made the statement and the quotas therei, 

provided. > 

Now, therefore, I, Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 
America, acting under and by virtue of the power in me vested by t! 
aforesaid act of Congress, do hereby proclaim and make known that ( 

and after July 1, 1924, and throughout the fiscal year 1924-1925, the quo 
of each nationality provided in said Act shall be as follows : 


Country or area of birth 1924-192 

♦Afghanistan *100 

Albania 100 

Andorra 100 

Arabian peninsula (1, 2) 100 

Armenia 124 

Australia, including Papua, Tasmania, and all islands appertain- 
ing to Australia (3, 4) 121 

Austria 785 

Belgium (5) 512 

♦Bhutan *100 

Bulgaria 100 

Cameroon (proposed British mandate) 100 

Cameroon (French mandate) 100 

^♦China *100 

Czechoslovakia 3,073 

Danzig, Free City of 228 

Denmark (5, 6) 2,789 

Egypt 100 

Esthonia 124 

Ethiopia (Abyssinia) 100 

Finland 471 

France (1, 5, 6) 3,954 

Germany 51,227 

Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1, 3, 5, 6) 34,007 

Greece 100 

Hungary 473 

Iceland 100 

/♦India (3) ♦lOO 

Iraq (Mesopotamia) 100 

Irish Free State (3) 28,567 

Italy, including Rhodes, Dodekanesia, and Castellorizzo (5) 3,845 

/♦Japan ♦lOO 

^ Lativa 142 

Liberia 100 

Liechtenstein 100 

Lithuania 344 

Luxemburg 100 

Monaco 100 

Morocco (French and Spanish Zones and Tangier) 100 

♦Muscat (Oman) ♦lOO 

Nauru (proposed British mandate) (4) 100 

/♦Nepal ♦lOO 

Netherlands (1, 5, 6) 1,648 

New Zealand (including appertaining islands) (3, 4) 100 

Norway (5) 6,453 

♦New Guinea, and other Pacific Islands under proposed Aus- 
tralian mandate (4) ♦lOO 


BACK TO 1890 257 


Country or area of birth (Continued) 1924-1925 

Palestine (with Trans-Jordan proposed British mandate) 100 

Persia (1) 100 

haPoland 5,982 

Portugal (1, 5) 503 

Qii((BRuanda and Urundi (Belgian mandate) 100 

Rumania 603 

Russia, European and Asiatic (1) 2,248 

Samoa, Western (4) (proposed mandate of New Zealand) 100 

San Marino 100 

'Siam *100 

South Africa, Union of (3) 100 

South West Africa (proposed mandate of Union of South Africa) 100 

Spain (5) 131 

Sweden 9,561 

Switzerland 2.081 

Syria and The Lebanon (French mandate) 100 

Tanganyika (proposed British mandate) 100 

Togoland (proposed British mandate) 100 

Togoland (French mandate) 100 

Turkey 100 

Yap and other Pacific islands (under Japanese mandate) (4) . . . *100 

Yugoslavia 671 

♦For each of the countries indicated by an asterisk (*) is established a 
lominal quota according to the minimum fixed by law. These nominal 
juotas, as in the case of all quotas hereby established, are available only 
'or persons born within the respective countries who are eligible to citizen- 
jhip in the United States and admissible under the immigration laws of the 
United States. 

(1) (a) Persons born in the portions of Persia, Russia, or the Arabian 
peninsula situated within the Barred Zone, and who are admissible under 
the immigration laws of the United States as quota immigrants, will be 

|ii charged to the quotas of these countries; and {b) persons bom in the colo- 
t|i nies, dependencies, or protectorates, or portions thereof, within the Barred 
|, Zone, of France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, or Portugal, who are 
:f ^idmissible under the immigration laws of the United States as quota immi- 
; grants, will be charged to the quota of the country to which such colony 
I or dependency belongs or by which it is administered as a protectorate. 

(2) The quota area denominated "Arabian peninsula" consists of all 
' territory except Muscat and Aden, situated in the portion of that peninsula 

and adjacent islands, to the southeast of Iraq, of Palestine with Trans- 
Jordan, and of Egypt. 

(3) Quota immigrants born in the British self-governing dominions or in 
the Empire of India, will be charged to the appropriate quota rather than 
to that of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There are no quota restric- 
tions for Canada and Newfoundland. 

(4) As shown on Chart No. 1262a, Hydrographic Office, United States 
Navy Department. 

(5) Quota immigrants eligible to citizenship in the United States, bom 
in a colony, dependency, or protectorate of any country to which a quota 
applies will be charged to the quota of that country. 

(6) In contrast with the law of 1921, the Immigration Act of 1924 pro- 
vides that persons bom in the colonies or dependencies of European coun- 
tries situated in Central America, South America, or the islands adjacent 


to the American continents (except Newfoundland and islands pertainin 
to Newfoundland, Labrador and Canada), will be charged to the quota o 
the country to which such colony or dependency belongs. ! 

General Note. — The immigration quotas assigned to the various counjj 
tries and quota-areas should not be regarded as having any political sig 
nificance whatever, or as involving recognition of new governments, or o 
new boundaries, or of transfers of territory except as the United State 
Government has already made such recognition in a formal and oflScia 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal os 
the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this thirtieth day of June, in the yean 
of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four and oi 

[seal] the independence of the United States of America the one hun- 
dred and forty-eighth. ■ 

(Signed) Calvin Coolidgb. 

By the President: 
Charles E. Hughes, 
Secretary of State. 

This proclamation shows the number of aliens that could 
be admitted to the United States under the new quota la^^ 
from quota territory. But it must not be assumed that thej 
law or this proclamation places any limit on total immigra^ 
tion. There are exemptions in the quota law, and, further.! 
nearly all the American hemisphere is not subject to the 
quota law. What the total immigration will be cannot be 
determined until the end of each year. In Chapter VI we 
noted what actually happened as far as total immigration 
is concerned for the fiscal years 1921-1924. I 

The naturalization laws state that the provisions thereof 
"shall apply to aliens being free white persons, and to aliensj 
of African nationality and to persons of African descent."! 
Aliens of other races are not eligible to citizenship and 
hence, with certain exceptions, are barred from enteringj 
the United States under the new immigration law and d(^ 
not fall within the quota. The nominal quota of 100 for 
certain countries can apply therefore only to persons ofi 
white or African race who were born in such countries. 

In the table following a comparison is made of the quota 
for 1924-25 with the quota for 1923-24. | 

BACK TO 1890 


Comparison of Quota for 1923-24 with Quota for 1924-25. 

(The asterisk and numbers in parenthesis are explained above in the 
President's Proclamation) 




Country or area oi birth 

1 (\(yA OK 

















Australia, including Papua, Tasmania, and all 



! 7. 



' 8. 

Belgium (5) 



' 9. 





















Denmark (5, 6) 

















France (1, 5, 6) 








Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1, 3, 5, 6). . 














♦India (3) 






Irish Free State (3) 




Italy, including Rhodes, Dodekanesia, and Cas- 



1 31. 

100* tr 
















' 37. 




Morocco (French and Spanish Zones and Tan- 










Netherlands (1, 5, 6) 



i 43. 

New Zealand (including appertaining islands) 

(3, 4) 




Norway (5) 




♦New Guinea, and other Pacific Islands under pro- 



Quota Quo 

No. Country or area of birth (Continued) 1923-24 1924- 

46. Palestine (with Trans-Jordan proposed British 

mandate) 57 1 

47. Persia (1) C) 100 

48. Poland 30,977 5,982 

49. Portugal (1, 5) 2,465 503 

50. Ruanda and Urundi (Belgium mandate) (") 100 

51. Rumania 7,419 603 

iy62. Russia, European and Asiatic (1) 24,405 2,248 

53. Samoa, Western (4) (proposed mandate of New 

Zealand) («) 100 

54. San Marino (») 100 

55. *Siam 100= 

56. South Africa, Union of (3) (•=) 100 

57. South West Africa (proposed mandate of Union 

of South Africa) (*=) 100 

58. Spain (5) 912 131 

59. Sweden 20,042 9,561 

60. Switzerland 3,752 2,081 

61. Syria and The Lebanon (French mandate) 882 100 

62. Tanganyika (proposed British mandate) (") 100 

63. Togoland (proposed British mandate) O 100 

64. Togoland (French mandate) (') . 100 

65. Turkey 2,654 100 

)6. *Yap and other Pacific islands (under Japanese 

mandate) (4) («) 100^ 

67. Yugoslavia 6,426 671 

Other Europe 86 

^^ther Asia 92 

Africa other than Egypt 104 . . »■ 

Atlantic islands (other than Azores, Canary Is- 
lands, Madeira Islands, and islands adjacent to 

American continents) 121 

Total 357,803 164,667 

' Included in ''Other Europe." 
"Included in "Other Asia." 
" Included in Africa. 
For Great Britain and Ireland, 

* Included in Great Britain and Ireland. 

' Including Fiume, 71, but not the islands named, which are included ini 
"Other Asia." 

* Included under title "New Zealand and Pacific Islands." 

y Approximately 55,000 were admitted from quota coun-| 
tries, as exempt from the quota, after the quota was filled. 
This number was made up largely of aliens of classes which 
were entirely exempt from the quota as provided by law; 
others, such as returning residents, were exempt after a 
quota was exhausted; and finally considerable numbers 

BACK TO 1890 


ere admitted in conformity with court decisions. These 
Idecisions were reversed by the United States Supreme 
■Court on May 26, 1924; but Congress, by joint resolution, 
Isubsequently legalized the status of these aliens as resi- 
dents of the United States, as we noted in the previous 

r The quota law does not apply to natives of Canada and 
INewfoundland, Mexico, Central America, South America, 
land the West Indies; hence, practically all of the admis- 
Isions from these countries were not chargeable to any 
quota. Aliens to the number of 80,682 who had previously 
been in the United States returned to the United States 
after an absence of less than one year; hence their last 
permanent place of residence was the United States. 

Practically all of the admissions from China, Japan, and 
India in the year 1923-1924 were not chargeable to the 
I quota of any country. 

In comparing the quotas for the two years, as given 
above, an important fact to be noted is that many addi- 
tional very small countries or territorial units are listed to 
have a minimum quota of 100, and certain groupings of the 
earlier year disappear. 

It must be kept in mind that the immigration quota fig- 
ures apply to country of birth. The table shows that the 
quota as a whole is reduced from 357,803 in 1923-1924 to 
164,667 for the fiscal year, 1924-1925. In other words, the 
quota immigration is reduced by law more than one-half. 
However, we have noted already that this does not mean 
that total immigration will be reduced one-half, or even 
reduced at all, for the total immigration must include im- 
migrants from countries not under the quota and also the 
non-quota immigrants who enter the United States. 

Great Britain and Ireland and the Irish Free State com- 
bined are reduced from 77,342 to 66,574, a cut of 19 per 
cent. Germany is reduced from 67,607 to 51,227, or 24 per 
cent. Other countries of northern and western Europe 
get a considerable reduction, Norway's being from 12,202 
to 6,453, while Sweden's is from 20,042 to 9,561. However, 


the important reductions apply to the countries of south- 
ern and eastern Europe. Italy's quota is reduced froir 
42,128 to 3,845; Poland's cut is from 30,977 to 5,982; Rus- 
sia's from 24,405 to 2,248; Czechoslovakia's from 14,357 to 
3,073; Hungary's from 5,747 to 473; Austria's from 7,342 
to 785; and Greece's from 3,063 to 100. 

Dividing Europe and a part of Asia into two large groups 
of countries, north and west Europe as a whole is reduced 
from a quota of 197,630 to 141,099 or 29 per cent, while the 
quota for south and eastern Europe (with Turkey in Asia, 
Siberia and Armenia) is reduced from 158,540 to 20,447, a 
cut of 87 per cent. 

BACK TO 1890 


It is evident, therefore, that the adoption of the census of 
!l890 automatically reduced the ^'new" immigration, for at 
that time the movement of immigrants from southern and 
eastern Europe was just beginning to get under way. The 
charge w^as made many times, both in the House and in 
the Senate, that this change to the census of 1890 was un- 
fair discrimination against the peoples from southern and 
'eastern Europe and in favor of the peoples from northern 
and western Europe. It is true, as the figures show, that 
this change does make a very great shift in the proportion 
of our immigrants who are permitted to come from these 
two groups of countries. The opponents of the law assume 
that this constitutes discrimination. The advocates of re- 
striction who favored the 1890 census plan argued that what 
they really demanded was the perpetuation of a very gross 
discrimination in favor of the countries of southern and 
eastern Europe, a discrimination against the countries of 
northern and western Europe, and, in effect, a discrimina- 
tion against the United States. 

Many of the restrictionists stated that the United States 
ought not to have to apologize for or explain any actual 
discrimination which it might think expedient for its own 
welfare and prosperity. They pointed out that virtually 
every other country controls emigration or immigration, as 
the case may be, in its own interests. They argued that 
immigration is a domestic question to be decided in the 
interests of the American people and not in the interests 
of any other people or nation and some of them went so 
far as to state that we may be as arbitrary as we please in 
restricting immigration. 

However, according to their argument the Act of 1924, 
with the quotas based on the census of 1890, does not dis- 
criminate against the countries of southern and eastern 
Europe despite all the charges of those opposed to it. The 
present law creates equalization rather than discrimination. 
The census of 1890 as the quota basis gives proper repre- 
sentation without discrimination. 

To support this argument they set forth the following 





April i 


In the Present Three Per Cent" Immigration Lav/^ 

Percentage Racial Slock In Present (1920) White fcpulati'on of 
the United States, (Including immigrants, descendants of immfr 
grants and descendants of original settlers) 

Percenta»ge of Quota Immigration Under Present Law 

Total 357,803 

fVrcentageof Quota Immi^ratwn Under "Johnson Bill" (H.R.7995) 

Total 161,184 

^ ^ ^ "Northern AND Western "Countries 

Raci*l Stock 

Belgium 17 

^ ■ ;1 |S B- Denmark..,,. ,...72 

^ i'/l S I Finland „ ^.-33 

t'M ^ B France 1.87 

Germany. K.68 

British Isles 6074 

Luxemburg 05 

'f ^ B Netherlan>3 - .. 1.77 

B §rl Norway 1.72 

Sweden 2.45 

1^ ««...tBr..f^l SW.TZER,.A.0 52 

|North«rn f.l Southern i-M 

nd.Westernjl tnd Eastern |^ Bg Italy Pefnd 

,.^3 m m ^ i ^ 
lid mt '-m |./;? 

_.-r^ ^:^C^ mm^li - 

%8S02 56.33 84.11 K.62 44.64 14.88 60.74 21.61 3887 3S2 2.91 \6\ V.66 S» 

The quotas as finally worked out make little or no change in the figures 
in this analysis, which was worked out by Congressman Vaile. 

facts. The white population in the United States, accord- 
ing to the census of 1920, was a little over 92,386,000 people. 
The countries of northern and western Europe have con- 
tributed 85.02 per cent of this white population. Under 
the Act of 1921 (the 3 per cent law), they received only 

BACK TO 1890 


(56.33 per cent, while under the present law they are entitled 
- ito approximately 84.11 per cent of our annual quota im- 
imigration. On the other hand the countries of southern 

Cd eastern Europe have furnished only 14.62 per cent of 
r present white population. Under the Act of 1921 these 
[countries were entitled to 44.64 per cent of our quota immi- 
Igration, while under the present law their share is approxi- 
mately 14.88 per cent, which is about a quarter of one per 
cent more than they deserve. Since the quotas for southern 
land eastern Europe are thus more than their per cent of 
the population of the United States, where is there dis- 
crimination? There being no discrimination, then have 
' they any right to complain — unless they insist that it is 
the alien who is entitled to have the per cent? The census 
of 1910, which was the basis of the quotas in the Act of 
1921, was not based on historical facts because it created 
a discrimination against the "old'' immigrants who founded 
and developed this country. 

On March 1, 1924 an editorial in the New York Times — 
pubhshed and controlled by Hon. Adolph Ochs, one of the 
greatest men of the Jewish race^ — stated: 

'The census of 1910, as a matter of fact, favors the newer 
! immigration at the expense of the old, and permits fewer 
I representatives of those races which built up the United 
States during the last century to come in than of the recent 
i arrivals. 

''In formulating a permanent policy two considerations 
are of prime importance. The first is that the country has 
the right to say who shall and who shall not come in. It is 
not for any foreign country to determine our immigration 
policy. The second is that the basis of restriction must be 
chosen with a view not to the interests of any group or 
groups in this country, whether racial or religious, but 
rather with a view to the country's best interests as a whole. 
The great test is assimilability. Will the newcomers fit 
into the American life readily? Is their culture sufficiently 
f akin to our own to make it possible for them easily to take 
i their place among us? There is no question of 'superior' 



Northwest European Stock in- 
cludes besides the countries of 
Northwest Europe, Canada, New- 
foundland, Iceland, Australia and 
New Zealand. 

South & East European Stock in- 
cludes besides the countries of 
South and East Europe, Hither 
Asia and Africa. 

All Others include West Indies, 
Mexico, Central and South Amer- 
ica, together with the Colored 


2% ON CENSUS OF 1890 



These three tables are taken from pamphlet No. 202, International 
Conciliation, September, 1924 by John B. Trevor, "An Analysis of the 
American Immigration Act of 1924," published by the Carnegie Endow- 
ment for International Peace. 



or 'inferior' races, or of 'Nordics', or of prejudice, or of racii 
egotism. Certain groups not only do not fuse easily, bu 
consistently endeavor to keep alive their racial distinction 
when they settle among us. They perpetuate the 'hyphen i 
which is but another way of saying that they seek to creat ' 
foreign blocs in our midst. 

"A policy must be formed without discriminating un 
fairly against any given groups, but at the same time witl 
regard to the interests only of the whole and not of an] 
special part." j 

The census of 1890 tends to give to the people of thii 
country proper and equal representation in proportion t( 
the nationalities of which this country is made up, re 
gardless of whether the immigration is new or old. Th(j 
restrictionists who argued that immigration is a matter oij 
privilege and not a matter of right, contended that it is th^ 
American people who are entitled to a quota. Assuming 
this to be our object, they declared that the quotas basec 
on the census of 1890 come nearer being just and equitable 
to all the people of America than any other census or plar 
which it was practical to adopt. If their argument is sounc 
then it is evident that the Act of 1921 discriminated ir 
favor of the new immigration, while the Act of 1924, basec 
on the census of 1890, divides our present and future imi 
migration perhaps as nearly as it can be divided in a prac-j 
tical way in proportion to the national origins of our pres- 
ent population, when classified as "old" and "new" immi-j 
grants. ' 

Concerning the suggestion to base the quotas on the! 
census of 1890 an editorial in the Saturday Evening Post ^'^ 
for November 18, 1922 declared: 

"As a temporary measure, the Act of 1921 has been of 
inestimable value in meeting a grave emergency; but even 
its friends are free to admit that it is unscientific legisla- 
tion, in that it establishes the numbers that may be ad-', 

" Without doubt, the idoa of basing the quotas on the census of 1890' 
was popularizofi by this editorial and made its adoption by Congress alraosti 

BACK TO 1890 


lifted without setting up acceptable standards of quality 
or the persons so favored. Indeed, it was realized before 
lie passage of the act that its logical operation would make 
{ t inevitable that a considerable proportion of its bene- 
iciaries would be persons that America does not need and 
loes not want, aliens that would almost certainly prove 
.lational liabilities rather than national assets. 
' ^'Mr. Garis ingeniously proposes to remedy the weak- 
lesses of the present law by the passage of a new act in 
fvhich the percentage rule shall be applied to the body of 
Aliens in the country at the time of the census of 1890. 
The merits of this proposal are obvious. In the year 1890 
t)ur population was still comparatively homogeneous; the 
immigrants living here at that time were for the most part 
bf sound, assimilable stock. Taken by and large, they were 
the stuff of which Americans have been successfully made 
for the past 100 years. Given the same material, we can go 
bn for another century making the sort of citizens we used 
to make 30 years ago. Measured in terms of racial values, 
■any given percentage of our alien element in 1890 bears 
■about the same relationship to a like percentage of our 
■foreign population of 1910 as a bushel of dollar bills bears 
■to the same bulk of ruble notes. Automatically such a law 
fas Mr. Garis suggests sets a high standard rather than a low 
' one, and at the same time fixes those definite numerical 
limitations that instincts of national self-preservation dictate. 

'The comparative remoteness of the year 1890 cannot be 
made a basis of any valid argument against adopting the 
• racial values of that period. A practical advantage of going 
. back to 1890 for our definitions and specifications for a 
really useful and beneficent inflow of foreigners is that such 
la measure may fairly claim the support of those who 
f formed their opinion on immigration matters some 30 or 40 
years ago and have never seen the necessity of altering it 
to conform to utterly changed conditions. Then, too, such 
I a law, in addition to being eminently fair and equitable, 
would be a fine and well-deserved tribute to those immi- 
; grants of a past generation to whom the country owes so 


much. It would be a fitting recognition of the sterl 
quahties of the Scandinavian peoples, who have done 
much to build up the Northwest; of the Germans of t 
Carl Schurz type, who came to us in such numbers befo 
the Civil War; of the Scotch and Scotch-Irish who, p 
haps more than any other races, take to Americanism as 
duck takes to water and are perfectly assimilated in 
single decade; and of still other peoples who have mate, 
ally contributed to our national health and vigor." 

It has been my purpose thus far in this chapter to expla: 
why the census of 1890 was adopted as the basis for quota 
to set forth the argument that it is just and equitable ai 
does not discriminate, and especially to establish the coi 
tention that it gives us a law that is practical and effectivi 
As Professor Robert DeC. Ward of Harvard has put i% 
^'Such a law results in bringing in immigrants who presei 
no difficulties of assimilation, who do not give rise to oi 
immigration 'problem'. It is automatically selective, i 
well as numerically restrictive. If we are to maintainni] 
physical and mental standards of our race; if we are i 
make America safe for democracy, to keep America f( 
Americans, there is no more logical or practical metho 
than this." Concerning the same problem Secretary c 
Labor Davis stated in a recent address, 'There should b 
some immigration of the right kind, but we, not Europcj 
will say who shall come or we will not let any come." Th 
census of 1890 as a basis for quota restriction gives us th 
most practical and effective legislation that we have eve 
had on the subject of immigration. 

The Act of 1924 provides in section 11 : "(b) The annua 
quota of any nationality for the fiscal year beginning July 1 
1927, and for each fiscal year thereafter, shall be a numbe 
which bears the same ratio to 150,00*0 as the number o 
inhabitants in continental United States in 1920 havin< 
that national origin (ascertained as hereinafter provided ii 
this section) bears to the number of inhabitants in conti 
nental United States in 1920, but the minimum quota o 
any nationality shall be 100. j 

BACK TO 1890 


' "(c) For the purpose of subdivision (b) national origin 
hall be ascertained by determining as nearly as may be, 
h respect of each geographical area which under section 12 
|s to be treated as a separate country (except the geo- 
;raphical areas specified in subdivision (c) of section 4) 
he number of inhabitants in continental United States in 
920 whose origin by birth or ancestry is attributable to 
iuch geographical area. Such determination sha.ll not be 
lade by tracing the ancestors or descendants of particular 
ndividuals, but shall be based upon statistics of immigra- 
Son and emigration, together with rates of increase of popu- 
lation as shown by successive decennial United States cen- 
^ses, and such other data as may be found to be reliable, 
i "(d) For the purpose of subdivisions (b) and (c) the term 

I inhabitants in continental United States in 1920' does not 
nclude immigrants from the geographical areas specified 
n subdivision (c) of section 4 or their descendants, (2) 
iliens ineligible to citizenship or their descendants, (3) the 
lescendants of slave immigrants, or (4) the descendants of 
\merican aborigines." 

' Such is the so-called "national-origin" plan, sponsored by 
senator Reed of Pennsylvania. It is to be noted that it is 
I ''national" and not a "racial" origin scheme. To illus- 
irate this point, under the Act of 1921 the quota of Turkey 
. ivas about 2,500 of which only 158 were Turks, the others 
I being 417 Hebrews, 658 Armenians, 631 Syrians and 179 
I Greeks, besides other races. Under a racial origin plan 
' there would have to be a separate Jewish quota. The 
• immigration from the British Isles would have to be divided 
j into quotas for the Irish, the Scotch and the Welsh as well 
j as the English. What would happen in Central Europe 
under a racial origin plan would be worse than a Chinese 
puzzle. Furthermore, under such a plan the immigrants 
I of a particular racial quota in many cases would not come 
Sfrom any one country but from many countries, which 
I would result in complicated problems. For these reasons 
'the law provides for national and not racial origin as the 
.quota basis. 


But does this give us as practical a basis for numeric 
limitation as the census of 1890, which is the present basis 
The purpose of this national origin plan is to divide oi 
immigrants in accordance with the national origins of oi 
whole population so as to eliminate all charges of discrin 
ination. The facts, however, seem to indicate that th 
present quotas based on the census of 1890 eliminate th 
discriminations in favor of either the "new" or the "old 
immigration so far as each type has contributed to our racii 
make up. The figures as stated were thus : the "old" iir 
migration is entitled to 85.2 per cent and gets 84.11 per cer 
of the total quotas while the "new" immigration is entitle 
to 14.62 per cent and gets 14.88 per cent of the total. Froi 
this it is obvious that there is little difference between th 
results obtained with either plan as the basis, — so far g 
the two types are concerned. 

While it is thus true that the percentages of foreign-bor 
Americans from northern and western Europe and fror 
southern and eastern Europe under the 1890 census ar 
substantially the same as the percentages of Americans 
native as well as foreign born, whose ancestors came fror 
those two grand divisions of that continent, yet this is nc 
true for many of the separate countries of the two divisions 

In a study of the population of the United States,'^ 
Mr. John B. Trevor has analyzed our racial compositio: 
and reached the results, indicated in the table on page 27c 
However, it is a mere approximation. 

If this national origin plan should ever go into effect it i 
most certain to lead to claims of discrimination and t- 
many hard feelings. Furthermore, while the English an< 
Germans are easily assimilated, yet such a large percentag 
from any one or two countries may not be as good for u 
as is the case under the census of 1890 by which metho( 
the total old immigi^ation is divided into what will seem U\ 
the nationalities concerned as a fairer distribution. Als«j 
the present quotas based on the census of 1890 will creati 
fewer problems for us. The object desired seems to b 

"International Concilmtion, No. 202, September, 1924. 

Analysis Oi' the 


Gountry of birth 

ants of 
stock enu- 
merated in 
1st census, 
1790. and 
of arrivals 


white stock 
born ; na- 
tive born of 

and native 
born of 




Jelgium . 

Bulgaria .... 


)enmark .... 
isthonia .... 




3ermany .... 
3reat Britain and 

North Ireland 
[rish Free State 







Luxemburg .... 
Netherlands . . . 








Switzerland . . . 
Yugoslavia .... 
San Marino .... 

■ Andorra 

Leichtenstein . . 









Abyssinia .... 


Union of South 



New Zealand and 

Pacific Islands. . 


Newfoundland . . . 
West Indies 


Central and South 

America . 


Mulatto .... 
Indians .... 
Chinese ... 
Japanese . . 
All others . 





Native born 
of native 


by arrivals 
















' 41,774 



Total 49,086,402 36,398,958 9,335,555 










Quota on 
basis of 
150,000 Act 
of 1924. 
Sec. 11 

fuly 1, 192': 





















not to admit more or less of any particular nation bu 
to limit all, but especially new immigration, in an effective 
and practical manner. 

Grouping of immigrants by countries of origin does no 
give, or rather it conceals, information as to the racial ele 
ments making up our immigration tide. For this reasoij 
care must be exercised by bearing in mind exactly what thii ; 
arbitrary grouping really means. National origin is noi 
always the same as identity of race. Politics often cu^ 
through and separate a race. The same race is not infre- 
^ quently found organized in more than one nationality 
Thus, country of origin or nationality as determined bj 
political boundaries or governmental jurisdiction bears nc 
constant or necessary relation whatever to race but ii 
usually an artificial result of historical causes. Politica 
boundaries, moreover, may not often be national; they are 
too often merely governmental. 

The national origin plan means that we would have tc 
abandon a practical method and adopt something which w( 
do not know anything about. As Chairman Johnson statec 
in the House, 'Tt appears to be a stalling plan. It is a 
postponement. It means three more years of struggle." II 
was put into the law in order to get the legislation through 
in time, for something had to be done and the Senate stooc 
behind its author. 

In the first monograph from the census, entitled ^Tncrease 
of population in the United States from 1910 to 1920'' 
there are fully a hundred pages devoted to an effort tc 
discover the nationalities of the stock of the people of the 
United States. No definite plan was worked out for it 
was impossible to do so and yet we must have some base 
to start with. It is not going to be an easy matter to come 
to some sort of artificial conclusion as to a basis and it is 
going to take years to do so. Its advocates confessed this 
weakness when they acknowledged that they did not possess 
any definite figures. Three years were allowed to solve the 
problem but as yet no satisfactory solution has been 
reached. Congressman Box seems to have stated the facts 

BACK TO 1890 


correctly when he characterized the plan as 'indefinite, un- 
certain and illy digested," while Chairman Johnson stated 
that under the 1890 plan you know what you are doing 
khile under the national origin plan you go after ''interest- 
ng but uncertain dreams." 

In an article in the New York Times Mr. A. H. Ulm 
pointed out that the preparation of the estimates of na- 
ional origins involves countless difficulties, some of which 
ire as follows: The first complete census was not taken 
mtil 1790. No records of immigration by nationality were 
tept until 1820. The total number of foreign born in the 
ijountry was not listed by country of origin until 1850. 
The recording of the country of origin of persons born here 
)f foreign-born parents was not started until 1890. He 
ndicated, furthermore, that there is the difficulty of classi- 
'■ying the millions of persons of mixed stock.^^ 
' The Secretaries of State, Commerce and Labor in their 
report to the President stated that ''the statistical and 

F historical information available raises gi^ave doubts as to 
the whole value of these computations as a basis for the 
purposes intended." Mr. Herbert Hoover, Secretary of 
T'ommerce, reiterated on January 11, 1927 the convictions 
'xpressed in his letter transmitting the census data on the 
national origins of the population of this country, that 
the historical and statistical data on the subject were "very 

After quoting various authorities on the subject of na- 
tional origins,^- Senator Shipstead stated: "I find that we 
i have not sufficient official or other data upon which to 
I determine the quota of each country upon this basis and 
. that it would lead to discrimination between nationalities, 
t which is just what Congress diligently endeavored to avoid 
I in passing the immigration act of 1924." As early as June 
24, 1925 the Director of the Census, Mr. Steuart, stated that 

" Oct. 10, 1926. 

. "*For a detailed verification of these statements see Congressional 
Record, February 1, 1927, pap:e 2747. 
I United States Daily, January 12, 1927. 
I ^Congressional Record, February 1, 1927, pp. 2746-2750. 


''there are no figures in existence which show completely 
the national origin of the population of the United States.' 

The Commissioner-General of Immigration in his annua 
reports for 1925 and 1926 recommended the repeal o: 
the national origins provision and the continuation of th( 
present 1890 quota basis. He stated in the latter repon 
that ''the advantages of the present method, for adminis- 
trative purposes, are its simplicity and certainty, and th( 
further fact that it is well established by practice.'' 

Under leave granted to him to extend his remarks Con 
gressman Albert Johnson discussed the national origins 
provision in some detail.^^ He stated: 'The determina 
tion of quotas under the national origins provision is ar 
executive function, and under the law the Secretaries o: 
State, Commerce and Labor are charged with the responsi 
bility of ascertaining the ratio numbers to be used in cal- 
culating quotas to be proclaimed by the President. Th( 
law, however, is peculiarly worded. It says: 

Such officials shall, jointly, report to the President the quota of eacl 
nationality, determined as provided in subdivision (b), and the Presiden 
shall proclaim and make known the quotas so reported. Such proclamatioi 
shall be made on or before April 1, 1927. 

But the law says further: 

If the proclamation is not made on or before such date, quotas pro 
claimed therein shall not be in effect for any fiscal year beginning befor 
the expiration of 90 days after the date of the proclamation. ... If for anv 
reasons quotas proclaimed under this subdivision are not in effect for an: 
fiscal year, quotas for such year shall be determined under subdivisioi 
(a) of this section. 

In other words, if the national origins provision does nc 
become operative, the existing arrangement shall continue 

It must be clear that, upon the adoption of the nationa 
origins provision by the Senate and House conferees ir| 
1924, consideration was given the possibility that ascer , 
tainment of national origins might not be feasible, and th( 
above language was employed to provide authority for the 
continuance of existing quotas in such a contingency. 

•"Piige 29. "Page 22. 

C ongrcHHional Record, Tuesday, June 29, 1926. 

^ BACK TO 1890 277 

I It follows, therefore, that notwithstanding the manda- 
Itory terms apparently requiring that national origin quotas 
pe determined, and that report be made to the President, 
'and requiring also the issuance of a presidential proclama- 
Ition on or before April 1, 1927, the new quota basis need 
not become effective at all. 

At this time I do not propose to discuss the propriety of 
readjusting quotas upon the national origins basis, or the 
desirability of the provision in the law, or the possibility 
of its repeal. 

I do not know of a certainty what quotas may be ex- 
ipected to be assigned to particular nationalities in the event 
J that the provision becomes operative. Various computa- 
tions have been made, but all are estimates merely. No 
one of them is entitled to be considered as certain of 
adoption. . . . 

Since the enactment of the immigration act of 1924 the 
press has given some attention to the national origins pro- 
vision, and because there is much misinformation concern- 
ing it I am inserting in these remarks a brief statement 
of the legislative history of the matter. 
I This information is as follows: 


(Note: All page numbers relate to the Congressional 
RECORD^^ermanent edition, 68th Cong., 1st sess.) 

The national origins provision of the immigration act of 1924 was first 
offered in the House of Representatives by the late Representative Rogers 
of Massachusetts, April 11 and 12, 1924, during debate on the immigration 
bill, H. R. 7995. The House rejected the Rogers amendment. (Record, 
pp. 6110, 6111, 6226-6229.) 

During debate on the immigration bill in the Senate, April 14, 1924, the 
proposition in slightly different language was presented by Senator Reed 
of Pennsylvania. (Record, p. 6316.) After amendment it was agreed to 
in the Senate on April 14. 1924. (Record, pp. 6471, 6472.) 

The only presentation of the subject matter in a committee hearing be- 
fore enactment of the immigration act of 1924 was on March 8, 1924, when 
John B. Trevor testified before the Senate Committee on Immigration. 
(See hearing entitled 'Selective Immigration Legislation,' Committee on 
Immigration, United States Senate, 68th Cong., 1st sess., on S. 2365 and 
S. 2576, p. 89.) 

^ Having been accepted by the Senate (April 16, 1924) and rejected by 


the House (April 12, 1924), the national origins provision became a subjedt 
for consideration of the committee of conference, which revised the text ol 
the entire bill, amended and accepted the national origins provision, anc< 
submitted its report (H. Rept. No. 688) to the House on May 9, 1924. 

The conference report was debated in the House that day and the< 
national origins provision was discussed by Representative Sab.\th (Record. 
pp. 8230, 8231), and by Representative Dickstein (Record, pp. 8238, 8239). 

The bill was recommitted to the committee of conference (Record, p.. 
8249) and was again brought before the House in a second conference re- i 
port (H. Rept. No. 716) submitted May 15, 1924. (Record, p. 8627.) In 
debate on the second conference report the national origins provision was 
discussed by Representative Sabath (Record, pp. 8634, 8635) ; by Represen- 
tative Wefald (Record, pp. 8635, 8636) ; by Representative Dickstein 
(Record, p. 8637); and by Representative Watkins (Record, p. 6850). 

The second conference report was submitted in the Senate on May 15, 
1924 (Record, p. 8568). The national origins provision was mentioned: 
briefly by Senator Harrison (Record, p. 8580)."®° 

The national origins provision was frequently before 
both houses of the Sixt^z-ninth Congress, Second Session. 
On February 1, 1927, the Senate, without a record vote,, 
adopted Senate Joint Resolution No. 152, introduced by 
Senator Johnson, of California, which would postpone the 
effective date of the national origins clause from April 1, 
1927 to April 1, 1928. This resolution was amended by the \ 
House Committee on Immigration to provide for the entire \ 
repeal of the national origins provision. The resolution 
(S. J. Res. No. 152) was then reported favorably to the ^ 
House on February 9, 1927. In its report, the House 
Committee stated that according to the commission, ^'the' 
statistical and historical information available raises grave, 
doubts as to the whole value of these computations as a( 
basis for the purposes intended." ^'^ On March 3 the House 
passed the resolution without the amendment. The Presi- 
dent approved it on March 4, 1927. 

The debate in the Senate brought out some interesting 
information on the subject. Senator Reed of Pennsyl- 
vania defended the plan while Senator Reed of Missouri 
and other Senators subjected it to sharp criticism. 

" A bibliography prepared by the Library of Congress for Congressman 
Johnson is in the author's bibliography under the title "National Origins." 

''For much detailed information, see Hearings of the House Committee 
on "National Origins Provision," January 18, 19, and 26, 1927. Hearing 
No. 69.2.1. Sixty-ninth Congress, Second Session. 

'^Congressional Record for Feb. 1, 1927, pp. 2737 to 2750. 

BACK TO 1890 


Excerpts from the debate follow : 

Mr. Reed of Pennsylvania: If the "national origins'^ 
method is repealed, it will allow an immigration of about 
164,000 annually. If it goes into effect, it will cut down 
the immigration to 153,000. 

Mr. Caraway (Dem.), Ark.: Of course, that question is 
not up now ; but I am very much opposed to an increase of 

Mr. Lenroot (Rep.), Wis.: Mr. President, is not this the 
situation? Those who desire the repeal of the law — and I 
lam one of them — merely desire to have the immigration 
remain permanently as it is under the law applied today? 
' Mr. Reed of Pennsylvania: Exactly. 

Mr. Johnson (Rep.), Calif.: Exactly. We remain exactly 
as we are today, with no increase, no difference, for one 

Mr. Bruce (Dem.), Md.: Mr. President, may I ask the 
Senator from California what is the motive back of it? Is 
it the idea that the time is too short to work out this 

I "national origins" idea? 

' Mr. Johnson: There are three motives: 

' First, the President is required under the law, and as- 
sumes the law to be mandatory, as we understand, to issue 
his proclamation on the 1st day of April. That is No. 1. 

' Either we must take affirmative action or he issues his 

' proclamation. 

i' No. 2. The time is so limited that the contest that is 
I obvious upon the subject matter cannot be disposed of. 

No. 3 is that the data upon which a law concerning "na- 
' tional origins" would be predicated are so insufficient and 
I so inadequate that even the President in his message says 
we can scarcely predicate anything upon them. 

Mr. Bruce: The effect of the proposition, then, is simply 
to postpone the date? 

Mr. Johnson: Entirely; to leave matters exactly as they 
are, and postpone the date for one year. 

Mr. Reed (Dem.), Mo.: Mr. President, when these 
illuminating interruptions came I was about to say that I 



have examined the report which is transmitted by the 
President to the Congress; and the report having been 
made with reference to the question of ''national origins," 
anyone who will examine that report will understand that 
at best it furnishes only the loosest kind of a guess as to 
the origins of the present population of the United States. 
A moment's consideration will show how difficult the prob- 
lem would be. 

A man whose ancestors or some of whose ancestors have 
been in this country four or five generations finds as many 
crosses of blood, and each of these crosses of blood finds 
as many crosses in its own instance; and the result is that 
it is very difficult to say, as to any man whose ancestors 
came here a century ago, that they are of English stock, or 
Irish stock, or Scotch stock, or German stock, because there 
may intermingle in his veins the blood of a half-dozen 
different races. 

So that the proposition of selecting people by race-origin 
is impossible, for there are probably men in this Chamber' 
who have four or five different national bloods in their 
veins; and this commission undertook to guess it off by the 
number of people of known national origin at some certain 
time in the country, and then presuming that their pos- 
terity continued in that ratio. 

It is the wildest kind of a guess. The national-origins 
law is the most impractical thing I ever saw written into a 
law, and it opens the door for all kinds of unfairness and 

According to this schedule which was prepared, we are 
nearly all English; the great percentage of our population 
is English. Everybody with a little bit of common-sense 
knows that is not true. The law ought to be changed. 

For instance, under the present law, as shown by this 
report, there can be admitted from Germany 51,227; under 
the proposed change only 23,428.^^ 

From Great Britain and northern Ireland — they divide 
northern Ireland now from southern Ireland, I presume, 
because it happens to be politically separated — under the 

* The following abbreviated table, taken from the Quota Board's report 
of December 16, 1926, shows the provisional national origins quotas for 

BACK TO 1890 


present law there can be admitted 34,007, and under the 
new allotment 73,039. 

Mr. McKellar (Dem.), Tenn.: What about the Irish 
Free State? 

Mr. Reed of Missouri: The Irish Free State, under the 
present law, is permitted to send here 28,567; under the 
new allotment, 13,862. 

I Let us take Denmark. We are getting into the Scandi- 
navian country now, speaking broadly. Its quota, under 
'the present law, was 2,789; under the proposed change it 
is only 1,044. 

Coming to Norway, under the present law its quota is 
6,453; under the proposed new allotment 2,267. 

The allotment of Sweden under the present law is 9,561. 
Under the proposed new allotment it is 3,259. 

Mr. Bruce: If the Senator has the figures before him, 
will he tell us how the new plan affects the Italian 

I Mr. Reed of Missouri: Under the present law the quota 
of Italy is 3,845. Under the proposed allotment it is 6,091. 

Speaking generally, the schedules as I look at them are 
inoi changes for the better. 

Mr. Reed of Pennsylvania: Mr. President, will the Sena- 
tor yield? 

Mr. Reed of Missouri: Yes. 
I Mr. Reed of Pennsylvania: As one of those who helped 

' the principal quota countries as compared with the 1890 quotas for the 
same countries. 



quotas on 

quotas based 

County of origin 

basis of na- 

on 1890 for- 

tional origin. 

eign born 


, , 1,486 







Great Britain and Northern Ireland . 






Irish Free State 



























in its origination, I think I might fairly claim that it did' 
occur to us that a man has one father and one mother, 
and some of the other profound truths the Senator has justi 
blessed us with. 

Mr. Reed of Missouri: I wonder why the Senator did noti 
follow some of these profound truths. Was it because they ! 
were truths that he shied from them? 

Mr. Reed of Pennsylvania: No; because the Census Bu- 
reau, which knows almost as much about these subjects as 
the Senator from Missouri, told us that it was possible with 
reasonable accuracy to determine the national origins of 
the present population, and because it was self-evident that 
no method of basing the quotas on the foreign born alone 
did justice to the native born of America, and every other 
scheme that has ever been suggested based them on the 
number of foreign born in this country. We thought that 
we, who were born in this country, had at least as much 
right to be reflected in the quota as had recently arrived 

Mr. Shipstead: The Senator from Pennsylvania said 
that the Census Bureau has claimed that they had some 
formula or system by which they could arrive at definite 
data giving us information of the national origins of our 
population. I think they made that claim at the time of 
the passage of the immigration act. The committee which 
under the law was charged with the work of gathering these 
data obtained their figures from the Bureau of the Census, 
and a report from them has been submitted by the Presi- 
dent to Congress. ... I think it is fair to assume that the 
committee composed of the three secretaries had all the 
data and formulas made available by the Bureau of the 
Census and that they made use of them. I should like to 
know if the Senator from Pennsylvania has any additional | 
information upon which to base an argument that other I 
formulas or other data are available now which will bolster 
the argument for the national origins clause. 

Mr. Reed of Pennsylvania: The Director of the Census , 
within a few days has testified before the House Committee j 
that the margin of error in the figures which have been 
published is very small, and that if the benefit of the doubt 

BACK TO 1890 


Immigration Quotas. 

Provisional immigration quotas based on national origin as provided by 
the immigration act of 1924; also present immigration quotas as based 
on 1890 foreign-born population; and estimated quotas on national- 
origin basis as submitted to Congress when the act of 1924 was under 

Country of origin 

quotas on 
basis of 

based on 








Arabian Peninsula 


\ustraha, etc 





Cameroon (British) 

Cameroon (French) 







Ethiopia (Abyssinia) 

■ Finland 



Great Britain and Northern Ireland 
i Greece 



, India 

Iraq (Mesopotamia) 

Irish Free State 

Italy, etc 









Muscat (Oman) 













. 100 



Country of origin 



New Zealand, etc. 


New Guinea, etc , 





Ruanda and Urundi . 



Samoa, western 

San Marino 


South Africa, Union of 
South West Africa . . 




Syria and the Lebanon 


•Togoland (British) 
Togoland (French) .. 


Yap, etc , 


quotas on 
basis of 


based on 



quotas on 

basis as 
to Congres 
in 1924 

were given the protesting nationalities, the figures would 
still be substantially as they are here.*^^ 

The evidence thus seems to be overwhelmingly against 
the use of ''national origins" as the quota basis, for, how- 
ever good the national origins plan may sound in theory,i 
this is not a time for experimenting. The census of 189(1 
gives us a practical, definite basis and virtually the same 
ultimate results, as between the two great regions of Europe. 

In a speech at the Hotel Astor March 25, 1924, Hon. 
Henry H. Curran, former commissioner of immigration at 
Ellis Island, stated: ^'I am for the 1890 measure. It 
helps us to become more homogeneous by sending to us 

Congressional Record, February 1, 1927, pp. 2741-2742. 

BACK TO 1890 


ievery year a miniature or replica of that which we are 
(already according to original national stock. The 1890 
measure is the soundest, the healthiest, the fairest, and 
the best." 

The Immigration Restriction League advocates the na- 
tional origins plan for the following reasons : 

"There can be little doubt, after studying the debates in Congress at the 
time the Immigration Act was passed, that the purpose was the same with 
J-espect to both the National Origins and 1890 bases; namely, to ensure that 
0ur future immigration should correspond in its make-up with our popula- 
tion as it is today. ... As between the two great regions (from which the 
bid and new immigration comes), the 1890 Census basis produced results 
^hich are only shghtly different from those reached on the national origins 
basis as recently reported by the Quota Board. However, the 1890 basis 
' does not work out -fairly with respect to individual countries within these 
groups, — more especially with respect to Great Britain, Germany and the 
Irish Free State. . . . While about one-half of our total white population 
is derived from England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland, their joint 
quota is only one-fifth of the quota immigration, while Germany, from 
which only about one-sixth of our population is derived, has a quota of 
nearly one-third of the total immigration. Discrepancies, although less in 
i'Xtent, exist with respect to all other countries under the 1890 census system 
now in effect. By the application of the national origins system all ine- 
qualities will be corrected." 

In reply to a question from Senator Robinson concern- 
ing the difference between the 1890 census and the national 
origins plans, Senator Reed of Pennsylvania stated: '^^ 
''There is almost no difference between the result of the 
1890 method and the result of the proposal I have just been 
) outlining.'' 

I ; The results being virtually the same for the old and new 
I immigration, the difference must be in the means to the 
■end.'^^ In making our choice of methods it would seem 
■better, therefore, to select the more practical and definite 
fclan, viz., the indefinite continuation of the 1890 census as 
■the quota basis. This would necessitate striking out para- 
Igraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of section xi of the immigra- 
Ition act of 1924. Thereby we would eliminate from the 
present law its main weakness. Such would seem to be 
jthe ultimate action that Congress should and will take on 
the subject. 

"^Congressional Record, Vol. 65, pt. 6, p. 5475. 
\ ''^Congressional Record, Vol. 65, pt. 6, p. 5468. 

" The old immigration today as a whole creates virtually no problems. 
(See supra, p. 218.) The changes proposed for the different nations, 
until based on more accurate statistics, should, therefore, be delayed in 
the author's opinion. 


Chinese Immigration 

Causes of early opposition to Chinese — Early state and municipal legis- 
lation against them — Early treaties — The Burlingame treaty of 1868— 
President Grant's recommendation — Congressional investigation — The 
Committee's report— Act of 1875— The treaty of 1880— Act of 1882— Act 
of 1884— The unratified tr2aty of 1888— Acts of 1888— Cases— Act of 189^ 
—Cases— Act of 1893— Treaty of 1894— Act of 1894— Acts of 1900— Act ol 
1902 — Act of 1904 — Conclusions on Chinese immigration — Act of 1917— 
Hindu immigration. 

No treatment of the development of America's immigra- 
tion policy would be complete without reference to oui 
legislation on Asiatic immigration. It is intended in this 
and the next chapter only to trace the course of this legis- 
lation and to point out the particular grounds on which 
it rests. 

The first great migration of Chinese laborers to this 
country dated from the time of the great rush to Californis 
in search of gold in the early fifties. Before the end oi, 
the sixties, on account of the absence of cheap labor, they \ 
had gone into a variety of occupations. They were indus- 
trious, thrifty, and the form of organization of the Chinese 
laborers, by which it was possible for employers to secure 
the services of almost any number desired through one 
contractor, placed a premium upon their employment 
They were at first regarded without aversion by the othei 
immigrants into California. However, agitation againsi 
them began shortly after their coming into California ir 
large numbers. The race antipathy which developed was 
due to their peculiarities of dress; to their color, language 
and habits; to their inoffensive manners and general de- 
fencelessness ;^ and also to the fact that, in many cases, they 




were willing to work for lower wages than the American 

j This popular feehng against the Chinaman soon ex- 
ipressed itself in state legislation and city ordinances, 
(directed specifically or indirectly against him. "An act 
iof the California legislature in 1855 imposed a tax of $55 
on every Chinese immigrant. A subsequent act (1858) 
prohibited all persons of the Chinese or Mongolian races 
' from entering the state or landing at any port thereof, 
unless driven on shore by stress of weather or unavoidable 
accident, in which case they should immediately be re- 
shipped. An act was passed in 1862 providing that every 
Mongolian over eighteen years of age should pay a monthly 
capitation tax of $2.50, except those engaged in the pro- 
duction and manufacture of sugar, rice, coffee and tea. 
All of these acts were declared unconstitutional by the 
Supreme Court of Calif ornia.'^^ In 1861 an act was passed 
imposing a tax on foreign miners. While it was levelled 
nominally against all foreigners, it was enforced only 
against the Chinese. Furthermore, they could not escape 
it, since they were the only ones who were not allowed to 
become naturalized. 

I In like manner a number of city ordinances were passed 
for the purpose of reaching the Chinese indirectly.^ San 
Francisco passed a laundry ordinance imposing a license 
fee of $15 per quarter on laundries not using a vehicle. 

*The Chinese laundries commonly used no vehicle. Men 
who sold vegetables on the street from door to door were 

'required to pay a fee of $2 if they drove a wagon, of $10 
if they went on foot. The "queue ordinance" provided that 
every person convicted for any criminal offense should have 
his hair cut to a length of one inch from his head. The 
loss of his queue was a lasting disgrace to the Chinaman. 
The ''cubic air ordinance" required that no person should 
let or hire any tenement house where the capacity of the 
rooms was less than five hundred cubic feet for every 

* Smith, R. M., op. cit., p. 238. 
'Smith, R. M., op. cit., p. 240. 



person sleeping there — which was enforced only against 
the Chinese. 

The efforts of the state of California to stop Chinese 
immigration were rendered futile by the decisions of the 
Federal Courts. A California statute which gave the state 
commissioner of immigration power to exclude from the 
state lunatics, idiots, deaf and dumb persons, cripples, lewd 
and debauched w^omen, etc., — the purpose being to exclude 
Chinese prostitutes — was declared unconstitutional by the 
Supreme Court of the United States. The court held that 
the prohibition or even regulation of immigration by a state 
was a regulation of foreign commerce, and hence belonged 
exclusively to Congress.^ 

Met at every turn by the adverse decisions of the courts,'' 
California finally decided to appeal to Congress for national 
legislation to put a stop to Chinese immigration. 

Our political relations with China date back to the year 
1844 when Caleb Cushing negotiated the first treaty be- 
tween the United States and that country. Neither it nor 
the Reed treaty of 1858 said anything about the rights of 
Chinese trading or residing in the United States, for under 
our laws at that time they were allowed to come and go 
freely, to engage in any occupation they pleased; and if 
they committed crimes they were subject to the jurisdic- 
tion of our courts. In other words, they were coming here 
under exactly the same conditions as the citizens of any 
other nation and enjoyed exactly the same privileges. 

By Art. V of the treaty between the United States and 
China, commonly called the Burlingame treaty, concluded 
at Washington, July 28, 1868, the high contracting parties 
''cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of 
man to change his home and allegiance, and also the 
mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of 
their citizens and subjects respectively from the one country 
to the other for purposes of curiosity, of trade or as perma- 

» Chy Lung v. J. H. Freeman at al., 92 U. S. Reports 275. 
*Sf3e Soon King v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703 and Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 
118 U. S. 356 (1886). 



nent residents;" they ''therefore join in reprobating any 
other than an entirely voluntary emigration for these pur- 
' poses;" and ''consequently agree to pass laws making it a 
penal offense for a citizen of the United States or Chinese 
subjects to take Chinese subjects either to the United 
' States or to any other foreign country, or for a Chinese 
\ subject or citizen of the United States to take any citizen 
'i of the United States to China or to any other foreign coun- 
! try without their free and voluntary consent, respectively." 

Art. VII stated, "But nothing herein contained shall be 
held to confer naturalization upon citizens of the United 
States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the 
United States." 

Prior to this treaty of 1868 our efforts had been directed 
towards compelling the Chinese to admit Americans to 
China for the pursuit of trade and commerce. In this 
treaty, however, we placed ourselves on the broad platform 
of the right of free migration and the duty of international 
intercourse. Shortly after this declaration, the influx of 
Chinese into this country caused such inconvenience that 
we immediately turned our backs on the principle of free- 
dom of migration, and passed laws excluding the Chinese 
as effectually as they had ever excluded foreigners. Thus, 
m later years this treaty became a source of embarrassment 
to the United States. The express declaration that the 
right of migration is inalienable and the express promise 
that "the subjects of China shall enjoy the same privileges, 
immunities and exemptions in respect to travel and resi- 
dence as may be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the 
most favored nation," expressly committed us, and under 
the most solemn circumstances, to principles which a few 
years later we flatly repudiated. 

In his annual message to Congress, December 7, 1874, 
President Grant stated: 

"In connection with this subject I call the attention of 
Congress to a generally conceded fact, that the great pro- 
portion of the Chinese immigrants who come to our shores 
do not come voluntarily to make their homes with us and 


their labor productive of general prosperity, but come under 
contracts with head-men who own them almost absolutely. 
In a worse form does this apply to Chinese women. Hardly 
a perceptible percentage of them perform any honorable 
labor, but they are brought for shameful purposes, to the 
disgrace of the communities where settled and to the great 
demoralization of the youth of those localities. If this evil 
practice can be legislated against, it will be my pleasure as 
well as my duty to enforce any regulation to secure 'so * 
desirable an end.'' 

In a letter to Mr. G. F. Seward, August 31, 1876,^ the 
Secretary of State, Mr. Fish, stated, "The application of 
the settled principles of international law to the Chinese in 
the United States is to be modified by the fact that the 
Chinese decline to accept these principles, leading an isb- j 
lated life in the communities in which they are settled, 
always expecting to return to China, and never, therefore, 
becoming domiciled among us, and that they maintain thel 
same system of isolation towards Americans in China re- 
garding them always as strangers, more or less outside of' 
the protection of the law." f 

The anti-Chinese feeling soon entered into national poli- 
tics and the leaders of the two parties yielded to it for the 
purpose of securing the vote of those states. In 1876 both 
parties inserted an anti-Chinese plank in their platforms, 
and a special joint committee of the Senate and the House! 
of Representatives proceeded to the Pacific coast to in- 
vestigate the question on the spot, and formulated a report 
which covered every phase of the Chinese question, and is * 
of value today in that it shows the way in which the 
Chinese were regarded by the various classes of people in , i 
California. This report fully substantiated the chargest 
/ made by the advocates of exclusion of the Chinese. 

They found "that there was danger of the white popula-- 
tion of California becoming outnumbered by the Chinese;? 
that they came here under contract, in other words as* 
coolies or a servile class; that they were subject to the 

» MS. Inst. China, II 429 in Moore's Digest, Vol. IV p. 188. 



jurisdiction of organized companies which directed their 
movements, settled disputes among them, and even had 
power of life and death, which they exercised by assassina- 
tion; that Chinese cheap labor deprived white labor of 
employment, lowered wages, and kept white immigrants 
' from coming to the state ; that the Chinese were loathsome 
in their habits, and the filth of their dwellings endangered 
[ the health of the city ; that they were vile in their morals, 
land spread prostitution, gambling and opium habits; that 
they did not assimilate with the whites, and never could 
become an integral and homogeneous part of the popu- 
lation." ^ 

Some of these assertions were perhaps too sweeping. 
However, the evidence then and to this day seems to 
substantiate the charge that the Chinese do not assimilate 
with us. It was stated by the committee that the Chinese 
come here' with the single object of making money and then 
returning to China; that they have no intention of becom- 
ing permanent residents and no desire to adopt our customs 
and habits of life; that they have shown no desire to become 
acquainted with our political institutions or to take part in 
poUtical life; that the whole history of the intercourse 

i between China and the Western powers has exemplified 

I the fact that, with their four thousand years of civilization 
behind them, they are imbued with a thorough contempt 

' for the mushroom growth of European life; and that they 
remain isolated and constitute an alien element in the 
midst of us. 

! The report closed as follows: 

'The committee recommend that measures be taken by 
the executive looking toward a modification of the existing 
treaty with China, confining it to strictly commercial pur- 
poses; and that Congress legislate to restrain the great 
influx of Asiatics to this country. It is not believed that 
either of these measures would be looked upon with dis- 
favor by the Chinese government. Whether it is so or not, 
a duty is owing to the Pacific states and territories, which 

"Smith, R. M., op. cit., pp. 242-3. 


are suffering under a terrible scourge, but are patientlj 
waiting for relief from Congress." 

Besides prohibiting the importation of women, egpeciallj 
Chinese, for the purpose of prostitution, and the immigra- 
tion of convicts, the principal provision of the Act of March 
3, 1875, was that the transporting into the United States 
of residents of China, Japan or any Oriental country 
without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose 
of holding them to a term of service, was to be punished 
by imprisonment for not more than one year and by a fine 
not exceeding $2,000. It further provided that any person 
attempting to contract in this manner to supply coolie labor 
to another should be guilty of a felony and imprisoned 
for not more than one year and pay a fine of not more 
than $5,000. 

Owing to the excitement caused by the dispute over the 
presidential election of 1876, no action was taken on the 
report of the committee until 1879 when Congress passed 
what was practically a Chinese exclusion act, which under- « 
took to abrogate the obnoxious sections of the Burlingame 
treaty of 1868. The bill, passed by the House by an over- 
whelming vote and by the Senate by a vote of 39 against 
27, was vetoed by President Hayes, who gave as one reason 
his contention that Congress had no right to abrogate a 
treaty. However, he hastened to comply with the wish of 
the representatives of the people that the treaty of 1868 
should be modified, and a commission was sent in 1880 to 
China for that purpose. 

On October 1, 1880 the American commissioners, Messrs., 
Angell, Swift, and Trescot, laid before the Chinese com- 
missioners, Messrs. Pao Chiin and Li Hung Tsao, who 
proved to be shrewd negotiators, a memorandum exhibit-' 
ing the difficulty and dangers attending the free immigra- 
tion of Chinese laborers into the United States, and the 
desire of the United States to revise the treaty stipulations! 
between the two countries on the subject. i 

The Chinese commissioners, in a memorandum of 
October 7, 1880, intimated that they were ready to enter i 



fupon negotiations to prohibit the emigration of the four 
classes — coolie laborers, criminals, prostitutes, and diseased 
ipersons. They also pointed out that there was no com- 
pulsory emigration from China to the United States; that 
'China rejoiced in the freedom which her subjects enjoyed in 
[America; they also quoted a declaration of Senator Morton, 
ithat the constitution declared that all peoples might come 
ito the United States without let or hindrance, and they 
declared that the Chinese in America had added greatly to 
the wealth of this country. The American commissioners 
I intimated rather sharply, due to this unexpected attitude 
"of the Chinese negotiators, that this proposal was insuffi- 
icient and asked that the Chinese Government consent to 
such a modification of the free immigration clauses of the 
Burlingame treaty as would avoid the raising of questions 
that might disturb the friendly relations of the two coun- 
tries. To this end the American commissioners submitted a 
, project of a treaty which stated that the Government of 
the United States should have the right to regulate, limit, 
suspend, or prohibit the coming of Chinese laborers, by 
which term was to be understood all immigration other 
( than that for teaching, trade, travel, study, and curiosity. 
(/ The Chinese commissioners agreed to the limitation of 
'i immigration, but not to the prohibition, and they sought to 
confine the limitation to California. The American com- 
1 missioners finally agreed to omit the word "prohibit" and 
I use the words ''regulate, limit, or suspend," but they de- 
clined to subject to conditions the right thus secured. They 
1 also declined to admit the exception of "artisans" from the 
i class of Chinese laborers. The terms of the treaty, which 
^are still in force, were agreed to on November 6, 1880. 
I Article I stated: "Whenever in the opinion of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, the coming of Chinese labor- 
' ers to the United States, or their residence therein, affects 
■ or threatens to affect the interests of that country, or to 
I endanger the good order of the said country or of any 
locality within the territory thereof, the Government of 
China agrees that the Government of the United States 



may regulate, limit, or suspend such coming or residence j 
but may not absolutely prohibit it. The limitation or sus- . 
pension shall be reasonable and shall apply only to Chinese | 
who may go to the United States as laborers, other classes 
not being included in the limitations. Legislation taken in 
regard to Chinese laborers will be of such a character only 
as is necessary to enforce the regulation, limitation or sus- 
pension of immigration, and immigrants shall not be sub-i 
ject to personal maltreatment or abuse." 

After the treaty of 1880 was concluded, a bill to execute* 
certain stipulations contained therein was passed by the* 
House and Senate. However, on April 4, 1882, President: 
Arthur returned the bill with his veto, his principal reason 
for refusing to sign it being that the passage of an act pro- , 
hibiting immigration for twenty years was an-4inreasonable j 
suspension of immigration and, consequently, a breach of 
the treaty. j 

Subsequently, a modified bill was passed by Congress,! 
and, although containing some of the provisions objection-i 
able to the President, he approved it on May 6, 1882. 
/ Thjs act suspended (sec. 1) for ten years the coming of 
< Chinese laborers to the United States, provided for the 
deportation of any who should come in violation of the 
prohibition, and imposed (sec. 2) on the master of any 
vessel who should '^knowingly bring within the United 
States on such vessel, and land or permit to be landed, any 
Chinese laborer, from any foreign port or place," a fine of 
not more than $500 for each such laborer, to which might 
also be added a year's imprisonment. These sections, how- 
ever, did not apply (sec. 2) to Chinese laborers in the 
United States on Nov. 17, 1880, or who should have come 
within ninety days after the passage of the act; but such 
laborers, in order to establish their right to go and come, 
were required (sec. 4), on departing from the United States, 
to obtain from the collector of customs certificates of 
identity entitling them to return. 

It was further provided (sec. 6) that Chinese persons, 
other than laborers, who might be entitled to enter the 



fUnited States, should be so identified ''by certificate issued 
under the authority of" the Chinese Government; and the 
[forgery of such a certificate was made a misdemeanor, pun- 
'ishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 and imprisonment 
(not exceeding a year. 

Masters of vessels were required (sec. 8) to furnish lists 
of Chinese passengers; and any vessel whose master know- 
ingly violated any provision of the act was subject to 
forfeiture (sec. 10). Bringing in by land was also made 
(sec. 11) a misdemeanor, punishable with fine and 

Any Chinese person who, on hearing before a "justice, 
judge, or commissioner of a court of the United States", 
was found to be unlawfully in the United States, was to 
be deported. 

The credentials of "diplomatic and other officers" of the 
Chinese Government were made equivalent to the certifi- 
(cate required in other exempt classes (sec. 13). 

• It was forbidden to admit Chinese to citizenship (sec. 14). 
Finally, the words "Chinese laborers" were defined as in- 
cluding "both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese 
employed in mining." 

The next legislation on the subject was the act of July 5, 
1884,^ one provision of which amended section 1 of the 
Act of 1882 so as to make it unlawful for any Chinese labor- 

[ ers to come to the United States "from any foreign port 

! or place." 

' Section 4 was amended so as to provide (1) that the 
' certificate of identity of a laborer, instead of being "prima 
: facie" evidence, should be "the only evidence permissible 
;< to establish his right of reentry"; (2) that every Chinese 

• person of the exempt classes claiming a right to enter should 
"obtain the permission of and be identified as so entitled 
by the Chinese Government, or of such other foreign gov- 
ernment of which at the time such Chinese person shall be 
a subject", and that the certificate thus required should be 
visaed by the American diplomatic representative "in the 

'22 Stat. 58. "23 Stat. 115. 


foreign country from which such certificate issues", or b 
the American consular representative at the port or plac 
of departure; and, while it was made prima facie evidenc 
of the facts stated in it, it was declared to be ''the sole! 
evidence permissible" of the individual's exempt character 
It was expressly declared that the provisions of the act 
should ''apply to all subjects of China and Chinese, whether 
subjects of China or any other foreign power." 

This act of May 6, 1882, as amended by the act of July 5, 
1884 was continued in force for ten years by the act of 
May 5, 1892.^ and was further continued in force by the 
V. act of May 5, 1902. 

The act of 1884 was carried out with extreme harshness 
and gave rise to a number of cases of individual hardship. 
However, relief was given in several such cases, one being 
as follows: a Chinese laborer who was here in 1880 but 
departed before the act of 1882 requiring a certificate had 
been passed, was refused admission on his return on the 
ground that he had no certificate, which by the act of 1884, 
was made an indispensable condition of re-admission. The 
Supreme Court held that the act of Congress should not 
be interpreted as demanding a condition impossible of ful- 
fillment, and that, although Congress has the power to, 
abrogate treaties by legislative action, yet such power will 
not be deemed to have been exercised if any other interpre- 
tation of the statute is possible. 

Opposition to the Chinese in this country continued, so 
that, in 1886, the Chinese Government announced to the 
United States minister at Pekin that China of her own 
accord proposed to establish a system of strict and abso- 
' lute prohibition, under heavy penalties, of her laborers 
coming to the United States, and likewise to prohibit the 
return to the United States of any laborer who had at any 
time gone back to China "in order that Chinese laborers 
may gradually be reduced in numbers and causes of dangers 
averted and lives preserved." We were only too glad tc 
enter into such arrangements and after some negotiations 

*27 Stat. 25. '"Chew Heong v. U. S., 112 U. S. 536. 



fa, treaty was concluded by Secretary Bayard and the 
Chinese minister under date of March 12, 1888. By this 
arrangement the United States secured the cooperation of 
China in the main purpose and object of the treaty, which 
is stated in the first article to be the absolute prohibition 
of Chinese laborers from coming into the United States for 
twenty years, and unless notice should be given by either 
Government six months before the expiration of the period 
it should remain in force for another like period of twenty 
years. To this prohibition the only exception made was 
a Chinese laborer who had a lawful wife, child, or par- 
ent in the United States, or property therein of the 
value of one thousand dollars, or debts of like amount due 
him and pending settlement. Mr. Bayard says, in making 
his report of the negotiations to the President, that ^con- 
siderations of humanity and justice require these exceptions 
to be made, for no law should overlook the ties of family, 
and the wages of labor are entitled to just protection.^ 

'The treaty did not affect the right at present enjoyed of 
Chinese subjects being officials, teachers, students, mer- 
chants, or travelers for curiosity or pleasure, but stipulated 

[that in order to entitle them to admission they must pro- ^ 
duce a certificate from their Government or from the Gov- 
ernment of the country where they last resided, viseed by 
the diplomatic or consular representative of the United 
States in the country .or port whence they departed." 

I The treaty seemed drastic enough, but in order to be 

I perfectly sure, the Senate added two amendments by which 
the prohibition was expressly extended ''to the return of 

! Chinese laborers who are not now in the United States, 
whether holding certificates under existing laws or not", 
and the production of a certificate was made absolutely 
necessary for re-admission. Such action as this is not un- 
common for the Senate now, but it did seem a little too 
anxious in this case to prevent the return of those who 
we had previously said might return. The Chinese min- 
ister received the additional amendments with the remark 

"Moore's Digest, Vol. IV, p. 193. 


that they did not materially alter the treaty. It was then 
sent to China for ratificaion in May, 1888. 

The government of the United States confidently ex- 
pected that China would ratify the treaty. However, in 
China there was delay. It seemed that China desired to 
lessen the term of twenty years, and to gain for Chinese 
laborers having property less than $1,000 in value the right 
to return. Congress grew impatient and passed the Act of 
Sept. 13, 1888, which provided for the carrying into effect 
of the treaty signed in Washington, March 12, 1888.^^ Since 
the treaty was not ratified, much controversy arose as to 
whether the law could be enforced. Section 13 of the act 
was held to be effective, although the treaty was not rati- 
fied.^^ In United States v. Chong Sam,^^ the fifth section 
and succeeding sections were held to be in force, though 
the treaty was not ratified. Contra, however, were U. S. v. 
Gee Lee,i^ U. S. v. Loo Way,i« and Li Sing v. U. S.^^ In 
U. S. V. Tuck Lee it was held that Chinese laborers 
who depart from the United States have the right to return 
only on compliance with sections 5, 6, and 7 of the act of 
Sept. 13, 1888, continued in force by subsequent statutes. 
On July 7, 1899, the Solicitor of the Treasury held that sec- 
tions 5-14 inclusive became immediately operative on the 
passage of the act, while these sections were declared to be 
continued in force by the act of April 29, 1902. 

No ratification of the treaty followed, however, and on 
receipt of unofficial reports that China had rejected it. Con- 
gress passed a bill prohibiting the coming to the United 
States of Chinese laborers. President Cleveland withheld 
his approval of the bill for some time, but finally, on the 
refusal of China to ratify the treaty unless the term of years 
was made shorter and other conditions were changed, on 
October 1, 1888, he signed it. 

By this act of Oct. 1, 1888, it was made unlawful for any 

"^25 Stat. 476, or Moore's Digest, Vol. IV, pp. 194-7. 
"U. S. V. Jim, 47 Fed. Rep. 431; In re Mah Wong Gee, id., 433; U. S. 
V. Gee Lee, 50 Fed. Rep. 271. i 
"47 Fed. Rep. 878. ^^"50 Fed. Rep. 271. ^"68 Fed. Rep. 475. 
"180 U. S. 486, 488-490 (1901). "120 Fed. Rep. 989 (1903). i 



Chinese laborers ''who shall at any time heretofore have 
been, or who may now or hereafter be, a resident within the 
United States, and who shall have departed, or shall depart, 
therefrom, and shall not have returned before the passage 
of this act, to return to, or remain in, the United States:" 
and all certificates of identity under sections 4 and 5 of the 
I act of 1882 were declared to be void, and the issuance of 
I such certificates in the future was forbidden. 
j The Chinese government protested against this legisla- 
j tion,^^ but its validity was upheld in the Chinese Exclusion 
f Case.^^ The President, in his annual message, Dec. 3, 1888 
^ stated : 

'[ 'Tn a message accompanying my approval, on the first 
I day of October last, of a bill for the exclusion of Chinese 
laborers, I laid before Congress full information and all cor- 
respondence touching the negotiation of the treaty with 
! China, concluded at this Capitol on the 12th day of March 
I 1888, and which, having been confirmed by the Senate with 
! certain amendments, was rejected by the Chinese Govern- 
I ment. This message contained a recommendation that a 
I sum of money be appropriated as compensation to Chinese 
I subjects who had suffered injuries at the hands of lawless 
j men within our jurisdiction. Such appropriation having 
j been duly made, the fund awaits reception by the Chinese 

I "It is sincerely hoped that by the cessation of the influx 
i of this class of Chinese subjects, in accordance with the ex- 
I pressed wish of both Governments, a cause of unkind feel- 
ing has been permanently removed." 

By the act of May 5, 1892,^2 the legislation of 1882 being 
; about to expire, all laws in force in relation to the exclusion 
of Chinese were continued in force for another ten years. 
Among other additional provisions. Senator Dolph of Ore- 

I"25 Stat. 504. 
"For. Rel. 1889, 115-150; For. Rel. 1890, 177, 206. 210-219, 228-230. 
"^Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U. S. 581. See also Nishimura 
Ekiu V. U. S., 142 U. S. 651 ; Fong Yiie Ting v. United States, 149 U. S- 
, 698; Lee Moon Sing v. U. S., 158 U. S. 538. 
I "27 Stat. 25. 


gon secured one which provided that all Chinese laborers 
within the United States were required to secure certificates 
within one year, and if anyone was found without such cer- 
tificate he was to be liable to deportation (sec. 6).^^ 

A number of interesting cases came up under this law. 
It was held that a commissioner has jurisdiction to make 
an order of deportation under sec. 6.^"^ So, also, a justice of 
the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.^^ Where 
Chinese persons unlawfully came into the United States 
from British Columbia, it was held that they should under 
the act of May 5, 1892, be deported to China, there being 
no evidence that they were ^^citizens or subjects" of British 
Columbia and neither of them claiming to be such, al- 
though there was proof that one of them had lived there 
three years and the other a year and a half.^^ It was held 
that deportation under the act is not punishment for crime, 
in the sense of the Constitution,^"^ and that the order of 
deportation need not explicitly refer to the act under which 
the person ordered to be deported is adjudged to be unlaw- 
fully in the United States.^^ Other important decisions 
held that the throwing upon the accused Chinese person of 
the burden of proof, is constitutional.^^ However, the bur- 
den of proving that the person arrested is a Chinese person 
rests on the United States.^^ In a number of cases it was 
held that the power of Congress to expel, like the power to 
exclude, aliens, or any specified class of aliens, from the 
country, may be exercised entirely through executive ofii- 
cers; or Congress may call in the aid of the judiciary to 

" For Chinese protest against, and correspondence concerning, the act of 
May 5, 1892, see For. Rel. 1892, 106, 118, 119, 123, 126, 134-38, 145, 147-55, | 

^In re Tsu Tse Mee, 81 Fed. Rep. 562; In re. Wong Fock, 81 Fed. 
Rep. 558. 

^ Chan Gun v. U. S., 9 App. D. C. 290. 

"U. S. V. Lee Kee (1902), 116 Fed. Rep. 612. 

"U. S. V. Wong Dep Ken, 57 Fed. Rep. 206; In re. Tsu Tse Mee, Srf 
Fed. Rep. 562. , 
**In re Tsu Tse Mee, 81 Fed. Rep. 562. 

^U. S. V. Wong Dep Ken, 57 Fed. Rep. 206; U. S. v. Williams, 83 Fedj 
Rep. 997; In re Li Sing, 86 id. 896; Li Sing v. U. S. (1901), 180 U. S. 486; 
U. S. V. Sing Lee (1903), 125 Fed. Rep. 627. 
U. S. V. Hung Chang, 126 Fed. Rep. 400. 



ascertain any contested facts on which an alien's right to 
remain in the country has been made by Congress to de- 
fend. In the same cases it was held that Congress has the 
right to provide a system of registration and identification 
Df any class of aliens within the country, and to take all 
proper means to carry out that system.^ ^ From these and 
bther decisions it is evident that the exclusion laws were 
Kipheld in virtually every respect. 

By the act of November 3, 1893, the time within which 
Chinese laborers in the United States were permitted to 
register was fixed at six months from that date; for the 
phrase ''at least one credible white witness," in sec. 6 of 
the act of 1892, there was substituted ''at least one credible 
^vitness other than Chinese;" there was excluded from regis- 
tration any Chinese person who had been convicted in the 
United States of felony; and the certificate of residence was 
required to contain the applicant's photograph. 

In. his annual message of December 4, 1893, President 
Cleveland stated: 

; "The legislation of last year requiring the registration of 
^11 Chinese laborers entitled to residence in the United 
States, and the deportation of all not complying with the 
provisions of the act within the time prescribed, met with 
•hiuch opposition from Chinamen in this country. Acting 
upon the advice of eminent counsel that the law was un- 
j constitutional, the great mass of Chinese laborers, pending 
judicial inquiry as to its validity, in good faith declined to 
apply for the certificates required by its provisions. A test 
Jpase upon proceedings by habeas corpus was brought before 
the Supreme Court, and on May 15, 1893, a decision was 
piade by that tribunal sustaining the law. 
[ "It is believed that under the recent amendment of the act 
'extending the time for registration, the Chinese laborers 
thereto entitled, who desire to reside in this country, will 
Qow avail themselves of the renewed privilege thus afforded 

' "Fong Yiie Ting v. U. S. (1893), 149 U. S. 698. See also Lem Moon 
Sing V. U. S, 158 U. S. 538; Li Sing v. U. S., 180 U. S. 486; Fok Yung Yo 
y. XJ. S. (1902), 185 U. S. 296, 302. 


of establishing by lawful procedure their right to remaii , 
and that thereby the necessity of enforced deportation man 
to a great degree be avoided." 

I have discussed this at length here in order to preserf 
clearly the right of the United States to require aliens ti 
register. In view of the present agitation for the registrgj 
tion of all aliens in this country, it has a renewed and addej 

China soon asked for the opening of negotiations lookini 
to a new treaty. These negotiations were successful. Th 
treaty was signed at Washington, March 17, 1894 and pro 
claimed on December 8, 1894. It was agreed (art. I) thai 
for a period of ten years, from the date of the exchange ci 
ratifications, the coming of Chinese laborers to the Unite 
States, except under the conditions specified in the treatjl 
should be "absolutely prohibited." Those going back t 
China were allowed to return here, providing they had 
wife, child, or parent, or property worth $1,000 somewhen 
in the United States. Registration was still required. I 
practically covered the same grounds as existing legislatioii 
except that the act of October 1, 1888, refusing to Chinesij 
laborers the right to return, was repealed. On January 24 
1904, the Chinese Government gave notice of the terming 
tion of the treaty on December 7, 1904. ' 

By the act of August 18, 1894, ''in every case where 
alien is excluded from admission into the United State! 
under any law or treaty now existing or hereafter made, thi 
decision of the appropriate immigration or customs officersj 
if adverse to the admission of such alien, shall be fina 
unless reversed on appeal to the Secretary of the Trea^ 
ury." Under this same act the courts can not review aj 
order of deportation from which no appeal has been taker; 

By the Act of June 6, 1900, the administration of th 
Chinese exclusion laws was committed to the Commis 

^^28 Stat. 390. In Quon Quon Poy v. Johnson, Feb. 21, 1927, Sup. Coui 
of U. S., No. 68, the Supreme Court held that the hearing accorded 
Ch'nese boy, seeking admission to the U. S. under the claim of America 
c'tizenship, was fair and the departmental findings conclusive. See als 
Re Simone case, supra, p. 97, and Ju Toy case, supra, p. 102, and case 
cited on p. 140, in note 14. 



iioner-General of Immigration, under the supervision and 
iirection of the Secretary of the Treasury.^^ However, by 
he act of February 14, 1903, the authority possessed by the 
Secretary of the Treasury in relation to the exclusion of 
[Chinese was transferred to the Secretary of Commerce and 
i.jabor,3* later to the Secretary of Labor.^^ 

After the annexation of Hawaii, on July 7, 1898, Chinese 
mmigration to these islands was declared to be regulated 
)y the laws of the United States. By the act of April 30, 

1900, provision was made for the registering of all the 
IJhinese in these islands, and Chinese living there were for- 
bidden to enter continental United States.^^ 

As the time came for the lapse of the period of exclusion 
provided by the Act of 1892, interest in the exclusion laws 
igain became intense, especially on the Pacific coast. A 
Chinese minister, in a letter to the Secretary of State, De- 
;ember 10, 1901, brought the matter to the attention of the 
[Jnited States, ^'urging an adjustment of the questions in- 
volved more in harmony with the friendly relations of the 
two governments." In his annual message of December 3, 

1901, President Roosevelt stated: "1 regard it as neces- 
sary to reenact immediately the law excluding Chinese 
laborers, and to strengthen it wherever necessary in order 
io make its enforcement entirely effective." A bill was 
introduced in the Senate on January 16, 1902 by Senator 
Mitchell, of Oregon, and a similar bill was introduced in 
:he House by the late Mr. Kahn, of California. In the 
Senate the Mitchell and Kahn bills were considered too 
;evere, and before passing that body they were amended by 
providing that all existing laws be reenact ed, and continue 
in force until a new treaty should be negotiated. Congress 
idopted the bill April 28, 1902 and the President approved 
t the following day.^"^ By section 1 of this act of April 29, 

1902, all laws relating to the exclusion of Chinese and their 
•esidence in the United States, including sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 

"31 Stat. 588. 611. '^32 Stat. 825, 826-829. 

"37 Stat. 736 (Act of March 4, 1913). 
"30 Stat. 750, 751 and 31 Stat. 141, 161. 
^ "32 Stat. 176. 


9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of the act of Sept. 13, 1888, were, s( 
far as not inconsistent with treaty obligations continued ir 
force, and were made applicable to the island territory o; 
the United States, so as to prohibit the immigration o] 
Chinese laborers, not citizens of the United States, froir 
such territory to the mainland territory, or from one part tc . 
another of the island territory, except in the same group 
and the islands within the jurisdiction of any State or Dis-fl 
trict of Alaska are considered as part of the mainland. 

Section 4 required all Chinese laborers, other than citi- 
zens, in the insular territory of the United States, excepi 
Hawaii, to obtain within a year certificates of residence ir 
such territory, on pain of deportation; but the Philippine 
Commission was authorized to extend the time in those 

Upon the refusal of China to continue the treaty of 189-: 
after 1904, Congress, by the act of April 27, 1904,^' 
amended section 1 of the foregoing act by omitting the ref 
erence to treaty obligations. Thus Congress reenacted, eX' 
tended and continued, all laws then in force in so far as they 
were not inconsistent with treaty obligations, so that ab- 
solute prohibition of Chinese laborers has continued to this 
day, for this exclusion law of 1904 is still in force. 

Such then has been the history of our dealings with Chinaj 
concerning the immigration of Chinese laborers into this ^ 
country. Perhaps it is not a record about which we can 
boast, yet it accomplished the desired end, — the effective 
exclusion of Chinese laborers.^^ The arguments and pro- J 
tests of Japan against the provisions in the Act of 1924 j 
which in effect excluded Japanese laborers from the United J 
States become rather feeble and groundless when one con-j 
siders the rather extreme measures we have taken against 
Chinese immigration. At any rate, from our brief review ofi 
our policy toward China, it would seem that neither Chinai 
nor Japan can hold out much hope for a change in the pres-^j 

^33 Stat. I, 428. 

® How cffoctivoly this is boinR done is ovidont from the table on page 305 
taken from the report of the Commissioner-General for the fiscal yean 
1924, page 156. 



Summary op Chinese Seekinc. Admission to ttir United States, 
June 30, 1919, to 1924, mv Classes 

Fiscal Years Ended 

Class alleged 

United States citizens 

Wives of United 
States citizens . . . 

iReturning laborers. . 

Returning merchants 

-Oilier merchants. . . . 

M embers of mer- 
chants' families . . 






(li anted o r denied 
the privilege of 
transit in bond 
across land terri- 
tory of the United 





. r3 



























































































' 2 




" i 




















26,230' 404 



Class alleged 

^United States citi- 

iWives of United 
States citizens. . 

Returning laborers 

Returning mer 

Other merchants. ; 

of mer- 

^ students 




Miscellaneous .... 

Granted or denied 
the privilege of| 
transit in bond 
across land ter- 
ritory of the 
United States . . 


Total 17,264 













19 16,575 770 



C > 








19,267 1,051 


ent laws that will permit even a limited admission of thei 'i 
laborers into this country. :jr 

Due to the objections of the Japanese Government 
other proposed methods of excluding Asiatics from thij 
United States, the so-called latitude and longitude plan wa: ji^ 
worked out and included in the Immigration Law of 19171' 
This clause awkwardly, but nevertheless, effectively, closec* 
the door against virtually all Asiatic immigration not al 
ready barred by the Chinese Exclusion Law and Treat}, 
and the ''Gentlemen's Agreement" with Japan, the lattei; 
of which, however, has been abrogated by the Act of 1924i 
In fact, the Act of 1917 provided for the exclusion of the 
Japanese under this clause in the event that the ''Gentle-ij 
men's Agreement" should become inoperative.*^ \ 

As we have noted in a previous chapter the clause re-^ 
ferred to denies admission into the United States to thei 
following classes of aliens: ! 

''Unless otherwise provided for by existing treaties, per-' 
sons who are natives of islands not possessed by the United] 
States adjacent to the Continent of Asia, situate south of 
the twentieth parallel of latitude north, west of the one 
hundred and sixtieth meridian of longitude east from 
Greenwich, and north of the tenth parallel of latitude 
south, or who are natives of any country, province, or de- 
pendency situate on the Continent of Asia west of the one 
hundred and tenth meridian of longitude east from Green- 
wich and east of the fiftieth meridian of longitude east from 
Greenwich and south of the fiftieth parallel' of latitude 
north, except that portion of said territory situate between 
the fiftieth and the sixty-fourth meridians of longitude east 
from Greenwich and the twenty-fourth and thirty-eighth 
parallels of latitude north, and no alien now in any way ex- 
cluded from, or prevented from entering, the United States 

■"The following inconspicuous sentence which appears in this clause, 
would seem to be a method of excluding by United States law all those 
classes of Japanese who were at the time being excluded under the 
Gentlemen's Agreement: "No alien now in any way excluded from, or 
prevented from entering, the United States shall be admitted to the 
United States " 



all be admitted to the United States." The rest of the 
lause deals with the exemption of certain persons because 
of status or occupation, from this provision of the law. 

Briefly stated the restricted area described in the pro- 
' vision quoted included India, Siam, Indo-China, Afghani- 
stan, parts of Russian Turkestan, and Arabia on the con- 
tinent of Asia, and New Guinea, Borneo, Sumatra, and Java 
as well as many lesser islands. The Phihppines and Guam, 
iand a large part of China, are also within the described 
area, but of course the islands named are ^'possessed by the 
United States" and accordingly are not affected, while the 
I Chinese are barred under the exclusion law as noted above. 
Japan and her possessions were entirely omitted from the 
restricted area, and they were thus favored until the Act 
of 1924 went into effect on July 1, 1924. 

The immediate practical effect of this latitude and longi- 
tude clause has been to check the coming of the east In- 
^dians or Hindus to the Pacific coast. In the opinion of the 
Commissioner of the State Bureau on Labor Statistics in 
California, ''The Hindu is the most undesirable immigrant 
in the State." While the immigration from India was never 
large, yet there was always a fear that many might desire 
to come. Canada adopted a drastic policy of exclusion 
against them in order to prevent what promised to become 
a veritable deluge of Hindu immigration into British Col- 
umbia. Except for a very inhospitable attitude the United 
States had no effective legal means of dealing with the mat- 
ter until this geographical or barred zone test was enacted. 
This provision, however, has effectively solved the problem 
of immigration from India and the other countries included 
in the barred zone, since it absolutely prohibits it, with the 
exception of the exempt classes. 


Japanese Immigration ^ i 

Analysis of the Japanese population in the United States — ^Japanese and 
Chinese immigration compared — Japanese in Hawaii — Causes and results 
of Japanese emigration — The development of anti-Japanese agitation in 
the United States — California's position — Act of 1907 — The Gentlemen's 
Agreement — Treaties of 1894 and 1911 — Criticisms of the Agreement — 
House Report 350 — History of the Japanese Exclusion law of 1924 — Effect 
of the Hanihara letter — The bill in conference — The fear of a treaty — 
Passage — Japan's protest — Analysis of the law — Japanese opinion — Ameri- 
can opinion — Japanese fear of and protest against discriminatory legisla- 
tion — Views of American officials — Conclusions. 

From the time that Commodore M. C. Perry in 1853 
virtually forced Japan to open her doors and to sign com- 
mercial treaties with the United States, Great Britain and 
Russia, Japanese gradually sifted into the outside world. 
However, it was not until the year 1885 that the Japanese 
government authorized its subjects to go abroad, but with 
the stipulation that the emigrant should never lose his alle- 
giance to the Mikado. It was not until 1916 that Japan 
enacted an Expatriation law, providing that a Japanese 
acquiring another nationality may lose Japanese nation- 
ality by petitioning the Minister of Foreign Affairs, under 
the condition, however, that he must first perform his mili- 
tary service, if above seventeen years of age. 

The increase of the Japanese population in the United 
States has been as follows:- 

^ Extensive use has been made of the following two pamphlets in writ- 
ing this chapter: 

(a) "Japanese Immigration," by R. L. Buell, World Peace Foundation 
Paini)hlot, Vol. VH, Nos. 5-6, and (b) ''An Analysis of the American 
Immigration Act of 1924," by J. B. Trevor, International Conciliation 
Pamphlet No. 202, September, 1924. 

^14th Annual Census of the UD ted States, Vol. II, p. 29. 




Japanese Chinese ' 

1870 55 

1880 148 105,465 

1890 2,039 107,488 

1900 24,326 89,863 

1910 72,157 71,531 

1920 111,010 61,639 

This 111,010 was composed of the following: 

Native born 29,672 

Foreign born 81,338 

Naturalized 572 

First papers 270 

Thus, about 27.2% of the Japanese population of the con- 
tinental United States was born in this country, and is com- 
posed, therefore, of American citizens.^ 

An examination of the figures given above for Japanese 
and Chinese immigration into the United States would seem 
to make it clear that since the enactment of the Chinese 
Exclusion Act, approved May 6, 1882, there has been not 
only a steady, but a very heavy fall in the number of Chin- 
ese enumerated within the borders of the United States. 
On the other hand, under an arrangement designed to ac- 
complish in respect to the Japanese, a similar result, the 
latter element has increased. During only ten years of the 
period in which the Gentlemen's Agreement was in force, 
in the decade 1910-1920, we find a very heavy increase in 
the Japanese population, viz., approximately 54%. While 
it is true that the expansion of the Japanese population 
during these ten years amounting in all to 38,853, includes 
increase by birth, the census enumeration of the foreign 
born during that period discloses an addition to our popula- 
tion of 13,758 by immigration; viz., the difference between 
a foreign Japanese population of 67,744 in 1910 and 81,502 
in 1920. On the other hand, the Japanese Ambassador, 
quoting from the reports of the United States Commis- 
sioner of Immigration, asserted in his note to the Secretary 
of State, dated April 10, 1924, that ^^in the years 1908-1923, 
the total number of Japanese admitted to and departed 
from the continental United States were, respectively, 120,- 

* Inserted here in order to compare them. 

* 14th Annual Census of the United States, Vol. II, p. 804. 


317 and 111,636. In other words, the excess of those admit- 
ted over those departed was in 15 years only 8,681." 
Against these figures, however, must be placed the follow- 
ing table taken from the Annual Report of the Commis- 
sioner-General of Immigration, 1923:^ 

Fiscal year Japanese Japanese 
(ended June 30) immigrant aliens emigrant aliens ' 

1912 6,172 1,501 

1913 8,302 733 

1914 8,941 794 

1915 8,609 825 

1916 8,711 780 

1917 8,925 722 

1918 10,168 1,558 

1919 10,056 2,127 

1920 9,279 4,238 

1921 7,531 4,352 

1922 6,361 4,353 

1923 5,652 2,844 

The situation which has developed in Hawaii as a result 
of Oriental immigration would seem to be fraught with 
political, economic, and social problems of great complexity. 
Suffice it to say that in 1920 out of a population amounting 
to 255,912 persons, 109,274 were Japanese, of whom 60,888 
were foreign born. 

In Hawaii the situation is as follows : 



Total 255,912 

Japanese 109,274 

Japanese percentage of total 42.7 

''Page 30. 

"These figures for Japanese immigrant and emigrant aliens differ from 
the figures cited in the annual reports of the Commissioner-General in 
the table, "Increase or decrease of Japanese population by alien admis- 
sions and departures." Thus, under the latter head, for 1922 the ad- 
missions to Continental United States were 8,981, the departures were 
11,173, a decrease of 2,192. For 1923 the admissions were 8,055, the 
departures 8,393, a decrease of 338. For 1924 the figures were 11,526 and 
9,248 respectively, an increase of 2,278. For 1925 the figures were re- 
spectively 3,222 and 7,265, a decrease of 4,043, while for 1926 the admis- 
sions were 4,652 and the departures 7,751, a decrease of 3,099. Since the 
figures given in the table for the years 1912 to 1924 are limited to "Japa- 
nese immigrant and emigrant aliens" they are naturally not as general 
as "ahen admissions and departures." Obviously this explains the appa- 
rent contradictions involved. See Annual Reports of the Commissioner- 
General of Immigration for the years referred to. 

'14th Annual Census of the United States, 1920, Vol. Ill, p. 1172. 

1910 1900 

191,909 154,001 

79,675 61,111 

41.5 39.7 



Between 1900 and 1910 the Japanese population in- 
creased 1.8% in relation to the total population, and be- 
tween 1900 and 1910 it increased 1.2%. Since 1920 the 
I Japanese proportion has slightly declined. In 1921 it was 
I 41.6% of the total; 1922, 41.1%; and in 1923, 40.4%.8 The. 

I! Japanese men in Hawaii are married in a higher ratio than | 
are the men of any other racial group. ^ But the Japanese ! 
birth rate is lower than the birth rate of all other racial 
groups, except the American and North European. 
According to the report of the Commissioner-General for 
1924 there were 3,516 Japanese admitted and 2,779 de- 
parted from Hawaii in 1923. In 1924 the figures were re- 
spectively 4,172 and 2,495 or a gain of 1,677.^1 In 1925 
there was a decrease of 1,038, the admissions being 965 and 
the departures being 2,003.^^ For 1926 the figures were 
1,126 and 2,640 respectively, a decrease of 1,514.^^ 

Japan's emigration problem has been aggravated by the 
size of her population. Japan is inhabited by about 56,000,- 
000, while her territory is only about the size of the state 

rof California. History would seem to indicate that emigra- 
tion will not solve the over-population problem, and this 
view has apparently been accepted by some Japanese 
statesmen who are looking, rather, to the industrialization 
I of Japan. 1* At any rate, such a step has been forced on her 
since she finds the door closed to her emigrants in Australia, 
j New Zealand, Canada and the United States. 

In so far as the United States is concerned, the situation 

: 'Adams, R., "The Japanese in Hawaii," Foreign Affairs, December 15, 
i 1923 ; and published separately in enlarged form by the American-Japanese 
Relations Committee, p. 7. 

'14th Annual Census of the United States, Vol. Ill, p. 1183. Cf. Labor 
Problems in Hawaii, H. Rept. 1717, 2 pts., 67th Congress, 4th session, Feb- 
ruary 26-27, 1923. 

Cf. Survey of Education in Hawaii, Department of the Interior, Bu- 
reau of Education, Bulletin No. 16, 1920, p. 15. 

"Page 148, Annual Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration, 

"Page 178, Annual Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration, 

" Page 158, Annual Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration, 

" See article by Marquis Kin-ichi Komura, "Japan's Safety Valves," 
in Liberty Magazine, Januaiy 22, 1927, p. 33. 



is complicated by some considerations of a political nature^ 
which must be considered owing to the fact that they havej 
distinct bearing upon certain provisions of the Act of 1924.i 
For example — The Gentlemen's Agreement was an under- 
standing between the Government of the United States and 
that of Japan, by which the latter voluntarily undertook to 
adopt and enforce administrative methods designed to- 
check immigration to the United States from Japan. Yet, 
it was only after prolonged negotiation and continued pres- 
sure that the Japanese government since March 1, 1920, 
has discontinued the issuance of passports to the so-called 
picture 'brides. Now, a picture bride has been regarded by 
the people on the Pacific coast as not merely a prospective « 
wife and potential mother of large families of Japanese! 
children, but also she has been in fact a field laborer. Ob-| 
viously, therefore, the entry of an indefinite number ofji 
picture brides tended to render null and void the effect' 
which was unquestionably intended on the part of theil 
United States, in entering upon the Gentlemen's Agree-; 
ment, even if in fact, there was no technical violation of 
the understanding. Unfortunately so far as reaching anj 
ultimate solution of the immigration problem was con- 
cerned, the Japanese Government introduced the system of 
Kankodan brides; that is to say — "In order to assist the 
Japanese laborers and colonists in this country to get a 
Kankodan bride instead of a picture bride, the Japanese 
Government officially made this change in the law, that 
where visitors from California and the coast going back to 
Japan had only 30 days in which to stay there, unless they ^ 
were prepared to do their conscription duty, that period] 
was extended to 90 days in the event that they came fori 
the purpose of getting a bride, and financial interests so 
arranged matters that the laborer desiring a bride could 
enter into a Kankodan party and secure his bride from ^ 
Japan at a cost which was not much, if any, in excess of the 
price which would have been paid by him under the picturetj 
bride system." J 

" Hf';irin{rs before the Senate Committee on Immigration, 68th Con-j 
gress, First Session on S. 2576, p. 27. Testimony of Mr. McClatchy 



Furthermore, there is the question of dual allegiance. 
"There have been/' said Mr. McClatchy, ''in the neighbor- 
hood of 90,000 Japanese born under the American flag in 
continental United States and in Hawaii. Three years ago 
I had an official report from, I think it was, the department 
of Justice in Tokyo, and there was exactly 64 of that entire 
number who had been permitted to expatriate under the 
laws of Japan. They were claiming and exercising the 
rights of American citizenship,^^ and all but 64 of those 
94,000 were tied to Japan and compelled to do her will in 
peace and in war."^"^ 

Finally, a curious situation resulted from the fact that 
"Section 3 of the immigration law of 1917, describing and 
defining the barred zone, specifically provides that the ex- 
empts 'of that zone must, while in the United States, main- 
tain their status, and that their wives and minor children 
must similarly maintain while in the United States a status 
placing them within the excepted classes, and that failure 
to maintain such a status shall subject them to deportation. 
In the case of the Chinese exclusion law and the Japanese 
Gentlemen's Agreement that requirement does not appear, 
although it would seem that the clear intent of Congress 
was that the exempts of these countries and races shall 
maintain their exempt status and be subject to deportation 
when that status is lost. By the decisions of the courts, 
however, a different rule now obtains as to the Chinese and 
Japanese, and as a result great numbers are annually added 
from the representatives of these races who enter as ex- 
empts to the wage-earning population of the United States 
by virtue of those admitted as exempts becoming wage- 

However, there are other nations which do likewise. 
" Hearings before the Committee on Immiu;ration, United States Senate, 
Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session on S. 2576, page 7. Mr. McClatchy's 
< testimony is substantiated by the following paragraph appearing in a 
dispatch to the New York Times, dated Tokyo, July 8, 1924: 

"The Japanese Cabinet today approved an important bill to permit 
Japanese citizens residing abroad who have not taken the oath of alle- 
giance by serving the Japanese Army to relinquish their native citizenship. 
"This will allow the children born of Japanese parentage in the United 
f States who have so far had both American and Japanese citizenship to 
discard the latter." {New York Times, July 9, 1924.) 



earners, and their wives and children similarly entering in- 
dustry as wage earners."^^ 

The first anti-Japanese agitation in the United States 
broke out in the year 1900. It was caused by the increas- 
ing number of Japanese who entered the country. Begin- 
ning with 1891 over a thousand Japanese entered annually, 
subject only to the restriction of the general immigration 
laws. As a result of this increase, meetings in San Francisco 
demanded the extension of the Chinese exclusion laws to the 
Japanese.^^ In July, 1900, the Japanese Government de- 
cided to prohibit entirely ''for the present, the emigration 
from Japan to Canada and also to the United States." This 
method did not prove effective, however, especially as Jap- 
anese continued to enter the United States from Hawaii. 
In February, 1905, a new anti-Japanese campaign was 
organized in San Francisco, which was led by the Japanese 
and Korean Exclusion League. Exclusion bills were intro- 
duced into Congress, but they met the opposition of Presi- 
dent Roosevelt, because of their discriminatory nature. In 
October, 1906, the San Francisco School Board passed a 
resolution ordering all Japanese children to attend the 
Oriental school in Chinatown. This led to the vigorous 
protest of the Japanese government, and on October 23, 
1906, Secretary of State Root telegraphed Ambassador 
Wright, that ''the United States will not for the moment 
entertain the idea of any treatment of the Japanese people 
other than that accorded to the people of the most friendly 
European nations." In his message to Congress of Decem- 
ber 3, 1906, President Roosevelt said, "To shut them (the 
Japanese) out of the public schools is a wicked absurdity." j 
He recommended the passage of an act providing for natur-!' 
alization of the Japanese. The President finally persuaded I 
the School Board to rescind its resolution on the under-i 
standing that the President would bring Japanese immigra- f 
tion to an end. : 

" Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor, for the fiscal year ended | 
Juno 30, 1923, pa^^e 113. 

"•Buell, R. L., "The Development of the Anti-Japanese A"-itation in the | 
United States," Political Science Quarterly, December, 1922, and March 


It is to be noted from this that the early opposition to 
the Japanese came from California, and to this day, Cali- 
fornia has fought their admission, although she has been 
aided by other Pacific and Western States in recent years. 
California's opposition can be easily understood when it is 
recalled that about two-thirds of the Japanese in the 
United States are found in California. In 1911 the excess 
of Japanese births over deaths in California was 523; in 
1921 it was 4,379. During 1921 and 1922 there were 540 
births for every 100 deaths among the Japanese in Cali- 
fornia. For the whites there were 142 births for every 100 
deaths. The Japanese have a birth rate of 341.2 per thou- 
sand married women of child-bearing age compared with 
a rate of 131.0 for the whole population and 124.8 for the 
white women in California, which means that the Japanese 
birth rate is about three times that of the white. About 
43% of the Japanese mothers have more than three chil- 
dren; while only about 24% of white mothers have families 
larger than this.^^ In 1920 about 50%' or 60% of the Jap- 
anese in California were engaged in agriculture. They con- 
I trolled 92% of the strawberries; 89% of the celeries; 83% 
of the asparagus; 64%' of the cantaloupes; 75% of the 
onions; and 66% of the tomatoes, which constituted about 
13% of the total value of the annual agricultural produc- 
tion of the State. In 1920 the total amount of land under 
Japanese control, 458,056 acres, constituted one-half of one 
per cent of the total land area and 1.6% of the farm land of 
fthe State. The holdings were as follows: 

I Owned by Japanese individuals 26,988 

Owned by American corporations with Japanese shareholders 47,781 

1 Cultivated by Japanese under cash-rent leases 192,150 

, Cultivated by Japanese under crop-share contract 121,000 

! Cultivated by Japanese under labor contract 70,137 


The following statements illustrate the general attitude 
of Cahfornians toward the Japanese immigrants in that 

Figures of the California Registrar of Vital Statistics. 


In a memorial to Congress, the California Constitutional 
Convention in 1879 stated: 

"As became a people devoted to the National Union, and 
filled with profound reverence for law, we have repeatedly, 

by petition and memorial, through the action of our Legis- 
lature, and by our Senators and Representatives in Con- 
gress, sought the appropriate remedies against this greatj| 
wrong, and patiently awaited with confidence the action of 
the General Government. Meanwhile this giant evil has 



frrown, and strengthened, and expanded; its baneful effects 
upon the material interests of the people, upon public mor- 
als, and our civilization, becoming more and more apparent, 
until patience is almost exhausted, and the spirit of dis- 
content pervades the state. It would be disingenuous in 
us to attempt to conceal our amazement at the long delay 
bf appropriate action by the National Government towards 
ithe prohibition of an immigration which is rapidly ap- 
fproaching the character of an Oriental invasion, and which 
threatens to supplant the Anglo-Saxon civilization on this 

In an article, ^The Japanese Invasion," Mr. John S. 
Chambers, Controller of the State of California stated:-^ 

"There is no need of excitement over Japanese threats. 
It is natural that they should feel as their talk indicates, 
ito say nothing of the obvious purpose to influence opinion, 
land, if possible, to strike a bargain. California has won, 
and she feels happy and secure in the victory, limited 
though it is. 

i "There has been more or less talk of superiority and in- 
^feriority as between the races, but not a great deal. The 

f issue is a fundamental difference, an unbridgeable differ- 
ence; not one of superiority or inferiority. Granting equal- 
ity, the standards of the races are almost as opposite as the 
poles, and there is no possibility of a common trend ever 
being evolved. Assimilation is impossible. . . . Their ra- 
,cial instinct is very decidedly developed. The two peoples 
run along different lines physically, morally, socially, eco- 

, nomically, and politically. As they differ in color, so do 
they in traditions, habits, and aspirations. Obviously, 
therefore, it is unwise for the two races to meet in numbers. 
If they should the clash is inevitable. The situation in 
California is bad enough now; it must not be permitted to 
^become worse. . . . 

"I wish to emphasize the fact that we of California are 
not acting in a spirit of hatred, vindictiveness or retaliation. 
We are actuated by the instinct of self-preservation. We 

I * The Annals, January, 1921. 


see the danger that threatens not only California and th i 
Pacific Coast, but which may involve our country as , 
whole. For Japan and Japanese on their proper side of th i 
Pacific we have only good wishes; on this side, we canno; 
feel so because we know that what they would considej 
their good would mean our undoing." 

In an article by V. S. McClatchy, publisher of the Saci 
ramento Bee, he declared:-- 

'There are three principal elements in the menace threat , 
ened by Japanese immigration to this country. The; \ 
are: , 

"1. The non-assimilability of the Japanese race; th 
practical impossibility of making out of such material valu 
able and loyal American citizens. i 

''2. Their unusually large birth rate per thousand popu, 
lation, already shown in California to be three times that Cj, 
the whites, notwithstanding that the estimated proportioi 
of adult females to males among the Japanese is only 1 tl 
4, while among the whites it is, say, 1 to 1. 

''3. The great advantages which they possess in economiij 
competition, partly due to racial characteristics, and partlji 
to standards of living, organization, direction and aid froni 
their government. These advantages make it hopeless ioi 
American whites to compete with them. 

"It should be evident that we cannot encourage or permi 
in our midst the development of an alien element possess! 
ing these characteristics without inviting certain disastel 
to our institutions and to the nation itself. The evidence 0]i| 
each of these points is apparently incontrovertible. 

"As to non-assimilability, the first element mentioned iiii 
the Japanese menace, there are three main reasons why ij 
is useless to attempt the making of good American citizen! 
out of Japanese material, save of course in exceptional in 
dividual instances. The Japanese cannot, may not and wi] 
not provide desirable material for our citizenship. . i 

"1. The Japanese cannot assimilate and make good citi 

'^"Japanese in the Melting Pot: Can They Assimilate and Make Ooo 
Citizens?" in The Annals, January, 1921. 



izens because of their racial characteristics, heredity and re- 

^'2. The Japanese may not assimilate and make good citi- 
(zens because their Government claims all Japanese, no 
matter where born, as its citizens. 

' ''3. The Japanese will not assimilate and make good citi- 
zens. In the mass, with opportunity offered, and even 
when born here, they have shown no disposition to do so, 
ibut, on the contrary, pronounced antagonism." 

In an article, ''California — White or Yellow?'^ Marshall 
De Motte, Chairman of the State Board of Control of Cali- 
fornia, stated:-^ 'The question of the mixture of Orientals, 
particularly Japanese, with whites, while it has its economic 
side, is nevertheless a race problem in the last analysis. Not 
!of an inferior race seeking to mix with a superior race, for 
at no time have we cast reflection on the Chinese as to their 
dependability, honesty, and shrewdness in business nor on 
!the Japanese as to their thrift, industry and finesse in 
diplomacy. We respect both of these members of the Mon- 
[golian race but the fact cannot be dodged that they either 
(must not come or if permitted to come must not be allowed 
ito gain a foothold that will eventually enable them to con- 
1;rol a single state of the nation as they virtually control 
OEawaii today." 

Senator James D. Phelan of California would seem to 
have summed up the situation in his state in the following 
brief article, which I quote here in full: 
S ^'The solution of the Japanese problem, growing out of 

I the California situation, requires prompt action by Con- 
fess. It is charged with danger. The people of Japan, as 

I well as the people of the eastern States, should be informed 

I in a spirit of frankness. There should be no misunderstand- 
ing, because misunderstandings breed trouble. 

"Great numbers of Japanese, men and women, are in Cali- 
fornia, and are acquiring large tracts of agricultural land. 
!The state law^ forbade ownership by aliens ineligible to citi- 
zenship, but the Japanese took deeds in the name of their 

i "The Annals, January, 1921. ^ Ihid, 


children born on the soil or in the names of the coi-porations i 
and so circumvented the intent of the law. The initiative ! 
law adopted at the recent November elections will, it is | 
hoped, prevent this circumvention, thus making further 
land acquisition impossible. The Japanese also lease lands 
and work for a share of the crop, and when thus working 
for themselves are impossible competitors, and drive thei 
white settlers, whose standards of living are different, from^ 
their farms. The white farmer is not free from cupidity 
when tempted by Japanese to sell out at high prices, and 
they do sell out and disappear. The state, therefore, is' 
obliged as a simple matter of self-preservation to prevent' 
the Japanese from absorbing the soil, because the future ofl 
the white race, American institutions, and western civiliza- 
tion are put in peril. The Japanese do not assimilate with 
our people and make a homogeneous population, and hence | 
they cannot be naturalized and admitted to citizenship.! 
Therefore, the question is principally economic and partly! 
racial. Japan itself excluded Chinese in order to preserve| 
her own people,^^ and that is what California, Australia,-^:' 
and Canada are doing. Japanese statesmen must surely, ; 
for these reasons, acquit Americans of race prejudice. Wei 
are willing to receive diplomats, scholars and travelers from ; 
Japan on terms of equality, but we do not want her labor- 
ers. We admire their industry and cleverness, but for that' 
very reason, being a masterful people, they are more dan-i 
gerous. They are not content to work for wages, as do the' 
Chinese, who are excluded, but are always seeking control,' 
of the farm and of the crop. j 
'immigration and naturalization are domestic questions, 1 
and no people can come to the United States except' 
upon our own terms. We must preserve the soil for the! 
Caucasian race. California, by acting in time, before thej 
evil becomes even greater, expects to prevent conflict! 

^ Note by tho author — See Japanese Imperial Ordinance No. 352 of : 
1899. Also footnote on pp. 109-10 of A. M. Poolcy's "Japan's Foreign 

^ Note by the author— See Williard, "White Australian Policy," Ch. II 
and Ch. VL 


and to maintain good relations with the Japanese Govern- 

'"The American Government rests upon the free choice of 
the people, and a large majority of the people are engaged 
I in farming pursuits. They form the backbone of every 
country — the repository of morals, patriotism and thrift, 
and in the time of their country's danger spring to its de- 
; fense. They represent its prosperity in peace and its secur- 
lity in war. The soil cannot be taken from them. Their 
'standards of living cannot suffer from deterioration. Their 
(presence is essential to the life of the state, I therefore urge 
I the Japanese Government and people to put themselves in 
our place and to acquit us of any other purpose in the ex- 
clusion of oriental immigration than the preservation of our 
(national life and the happiness and prosperity of the men 
^and women who founded the Republic, and who have de- 
veloped its resources, and who occupy the land. It is theirs 
in trust for their posterity. 

'The people of Asia have a destiny of their own. We shall 
aid them by instruction and example, but we cannot suffer 
: them to overwhelm the civilization which has been estab- 
lished by pioneers and patriots and which we are dutifully 
bound to preserve." 

In the immigration act of February 20, 1907, the Presi- 
dent was authorized to refuse entrance to immigrants who, 
t to obtain entrance to the mainland, were using passports 
originally issued to ''any country other than the United 
States."-^ Under this authority, the President issued the 
* proclamation of March 14, 1907, which ordered that "Jap- 
anese or Korean laborers, skilled or unskilled, who have re- 
j ceived passports to go to Mexico, Canada or Hawaii and 
\ come therefrom, be refused permission to enter the conti- 
i nental territory of the United States."-^ This proclamation 
I was revised on February 24, 1913, so as not to use the 
words "Japanese or Korean" but to bar all "such alien 

" Repeated in Sec. 3 of the act of February 4, 1917. 
^Department Circular No. 147, March 26, 1907; and Rule 21, Immi- 
; gration Regulations of July 1, 1907. 


laborers."-^ This method stopped Japanese immigration 
from Hawaii and Mexico, but not directly from Japan. Thcs 
act of 1907 also authorized the President to enter into ''sucfc' 
international agreements as may be proper to prevent tht 
immigration of aliens who, under the laws of the Unitec 
States are or may be excluded from entering the Unitec 
States, and of regulating any matters pertaining to such 

Under the vague authority of this act, President Roose- 
velt entered into the so-called Gentlemen's Agreement oi\ 
1907-08. By this agreement the Japanese might continual 
to issue passports to nonlaborers. But it promised not tc' 
issue passports to laborers skilled or unskilled wishing to gc 
to the continental United States with the exception of twc' 
main classes: (1) those who return to resume a formerly' 
acquired domicile; (2) parents, wives and children, under 
twenty years of age, of laborers in the United States. The' 
Japanese Government accepted the definition of ''laborer' 
as given in the United States Executive order of April 8 
1907. Although the agreement was not applicable tc* 
Hawaii, Japan applied practically the same restrictive' 
measures to immigration with that destination. The Jap-^ 
anese Government similarly limited immigration to Mexico i 

The Gentlemen's Agreement was not embodied in a' 
treaty which was submitted to and approved by the Senate 
of the United States. It was merely an ''executive agree-' 
ment" made by the President in virtue of his power to con-' 
trol foreign relations.^ ^ The Japanese continued to be' 
subject to the restrictions imposed on all immigrants by- 
legislation and they were subject to the literacy test enacted 
in 1917. 

The;treaty of November 22, 1894, between Japan and the' 
United States provided that "The citizens or subjects ol' 
each of the High Contracting Parties shall have full liberty" 

Rule 11, Regulations of the Department of Labor, in effect Oct. 15 
1915, p. 153. 
^34 Stat. 898, Sec. 39. 

"See Corwin, E. S., The President's Control of Foreign Relations, pp 

to enter, travel or reside in any part of the territories of 
the other Contracting Party ,/and shall enjoy full and per- 
feet protection for their pe/sons and property." This ex- 
II tremely wide provision was cut down by a subsequent 
iitf (Paragraph in Article 2, )^hich declared that the above pro- 
!itf vision should not ''in ^ny way affect the laws, ordinances 
;! and regulations with regard to trade, the immigration of 

I laborers, police an^ public security which are in force or 
which may hereafter be enacted in either of the two coun- 
tries."^^ This p/ovision would have permitted the United 
States to enact an exclusion law without violating the 
This treaty of 1894 was supplanted by the treaty of Feb- 
iruary 21, 1911. At the insistence of the Japanese Govern- 
jment the provision of the 1894 treaty, exempting exclusion 
(laws, was omitted. Article I of the treaty was changed to 
read as follows: "The Citizens or subjects of each of the 
IHigh Contracting Parties shall have liberty to enter, travel 
and reside in the territories of the other to carry on trade, 
wholesale and retail, to own or lease and occupy houses, 
manufactories, warehouses and shops, to employ agents of 
their own choice, to lease land for residential and commer- 
I'cial purposes, and generally to do anything incident to or 
! necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens 
I or subjects, submitting themselves to the laws and regula- 
jtions."^^ Article I of the treaty of 1894 appears to have 
t authorized the free admission of Japanese into this country 
[regardless of purpose, while Article I of the treaty of 1911 
[appears to have authorized such admission only for pur- 
poses of trade. In his letter of February 8, 1924, Secretary 
iof State Hughes pointed out that pending immigration 
legislation appeared to exclude aliens entitled to enter 
under such treaties, and he suggested that the legislation 
I should not apply to ''an alien entitled to enter the United 
' States under the provisions of a treaty." The House Com- 
imittee would not go this far, but did add this additional 

""Malloy, Treaties and Conventions of the United States, p. 1028. 
"Treaties of the United States, Vol. Ill, p. 2712. 


exempted class: ''(6) An alien entitled to enter the United | 
States solely to carry on trade under and in pursuance oi: 
the provisions of a present existing treaty of commerce and , 

The treaty of 1911 between Japan and the United States 
was approved by the Senate subject to this understanding, 
"That the treaty shall not be deemed to repeal or affect anyi; 
of the provisions of the Act of Congress entitled 'An Act to 
Regulate the Immigration of Aliens into the United States,' 
approved February 20, 1907." This understanding was ac- 
cepted by Japan. The treaty was accompanied by the fol- 
lowing declaration of the Japanese Ambassador: 

'Tn proceeding this day to the signature of the Treaty ofl 
Commerce and Navigation between Japan and the Unitedl 
States the undersigned, Japanese Ambassador at Washing- 
ton, duly authorized by his Government, has the honor to 
declare that the Imperial Japanese Government are fully 
prepared to maintain with equal effectiveness the limitation . 
and control which they have for the past three years exer- : 
cised in regulation of the emigration of laborers to the- 
United States. 

February 21, 1911.^^ Y. Uchida.'' 

In the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, the Gentle- 
men's Agreement was indirectly recognized as follows : "and 
no alien now in any way excluded from, or prevented from 
entering, the United States shall be admitted to the United 
States." It was again recognized in the Immigration Law 
of May 19, 1921, which stated that the provision in regard 
to quotas should not apply to "aliens from countries im- 
migration from which is regulated in accordance with 
treaties or agreements relating solely to immigration." 

Government officials frequently declared that the Gentle- 
men's Agreement was a satisfactory means of limiting im- 
migration. In 1910, the Commissioner of Labor in Hawaii 
said that the agreement had effectively stopped the influx 

H. Report No. 350, Committee on Immipration and Naturalization, 
68th ConGrross. 1st session, March 24. 1P24. p. 2. 
Treaties of the United States, III, pp. 2717, 2718. 



of Japanese plantation labor there.^^ In May, 1916, Secre- 
tary of Labor Wilson defended the agreement in a letter to 
Senator Phelan.^'^ In another letter to the same Senator in 
August, 1919, Hon. William Phillips, Acting Secretary of 
State, likewise said that the Agreement 'Vas working with 
a fair degree of satisfaction."^* The Agreement was de- 
fended by Secretary Hughes in his letter to the House Com- 
mittee, of February 8, 1924, and also by Ambassador Hani- 
hara in his note of April 10. In 1913 President Roosevelt 
wrote, ^'The arrangement we made (the Gentlemen's 
Agreement) worked admirably, and entirely achieved its 

However, the Pacific coast was critical of the Agreement 
from the beginning. In 1909 the California legislature 
passed a resolution urging the extension of the Chinese Ex- 
clusion Laws to the Japanese.^^ In 1913 it passed a land 
law giving aliens ineligible to citizenship all rights to real 
property granted by treaty, but no others, except the right 
to lease land for three years."*^ According to section 2169 
of the Revised Statutes, which is still in force, naturaliza- 
tion is limited to ^'free white persons and to aliens of 
African nativity and to persons of African descent." The 
Supreme Court has finally decided that Japanese are not 
"free white persons" and are not therefore eligible to citi- 
zenship.^^ (Japanese born in the United States are, how- 
ever, citizens.) As a result of the California land law of 
1913 Japanese aliens could not acquire agricultural land. 
In 1920 an initiative measure of even greater severity pro- 
hibited leases and all other interests in real property.^^ As 
a result of these measures, as interpreted by the Supreme 

^Fourth Report of the Commissioner of Labor on Hawaii, 1910, Sen. 
Doc. 866, 61st Congress, 3rd Session, Vol. 70, p. 51. 
" 54 Congressional Record, p. 254. 
^Printed, California and the Oriental, p. 142. 
^"Roosevelt, Theodore, An Autohiogrophy (1913), p. 414. 
'"California Statutes, 1909, p 1346. 
*'Ibid., 1913, Chap. 113. 

/"Ozawa V. United States, 260 U. S. 178 (1922). On the question of 
citizenship see Van Dyne, Citizenship of the United States, and McGov- 
ney, "American Citizenship," Columbia Law Review, XI, 231, 326. 
*^ 1921 California Statutes, pp. Ixxxvii-xc. 


Court, the Japanese were deprived of the use of more than 
300,000 acres of land which they had held by forms other 
than ownership. Arizona passed a similar law in February 
1921.^^. Washington and Texas also passed land laws, 
somewhat less discriminatory than the California and Ari- 
zona laws. They allow aliens to acquire land upon the same 
basis as citizens if they have legally declared their inten- 
tions to become citizens of the United States.^^ Since Japan- 
ese are ineligible to citizenship, they are effectually barred.*^ 
In 1919, the California Senate again urged federal action 
in regard to Japanese immigration.^^ On June 19, 1920, 
the State Board of Control made a report, entitled ''Cali- 
fornia and the Oriental," which was transmitted to the Sec- 
retary of State of the United States by Governor W. D. 
Stephens. In this letter the Governor pointed out the 
increase of the Japanese population in California, which, 
in his opinion, proved that the Gentlemen's Agreement had 
not worked.^^ Particularly he criticized the entrance of 
''picture brides" — Japanese women married by proxy in 
Japan to Japanese laborers in America, and who were there- 
upon given passports to the United States. The Japanese 
Government voluntarily stopped issuing passports to "pic- 
ture brides," beginning March 1, 1920, although they were 
admissible as "wives" under the Gentlemen's Agreement. 

Arizona Session Laws, 1921, Chap. 29, p. 2. 

Washington Session Laws, 1921, Chap. 50; cf. Alien Land Laws and 
Ahen Rights, H. Doc. 89, 67th Cong., 1st sess., June 2, 1921. 

In a series of cases these alien land laws were sustained as against 
complaints founded on treaties and on the Fourteenth Amendment 
Terrace v. Thompson (1923), 263 U. S. 197; Porterfield v. Webb (1923) 
263 U. S. 225; Webb v. O'Brien (1923), 263 U. S. 313; Frick v. Webb 
(1923), 263 U. S. 326. However, the denial to an alien of a license to be 
a pawnbroker was held to be forbidden by the federal treaty with Japan. 
Asakura v. Seattle (1924), 265 U. S. 332. In the state of Ohio ex rel 
James Clarke v. Auditor of the City of Cincinnati; the U. S. Supreme 
Court sustained the city's denial to an (English) alien of a permit to 
operate a pool room; the denial being reasonable under the city's police 
powers. Many important cases are cited by the Court. See No. 272; 
Sup. Court of U. S., May 16, 1927. (United States Daily, May 20, 1927.) 

California Senate Journal, 1919, p. 1377. 
**The accuracy of this report was attacked by K. Kanzaki, Secretary 
of the Japanese Association of America, Hearings, "Japanese Immigra- 
tion." Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 1921, pp. 727, 728. 
*^ California and the Oriental, pp. 7. 14. 



In his 1920 report the Commissioner-General of Immi- 
gration declared that despite the Agreement, Japanese sur- 
reptitiously entered this country from Mexico and South 
America. He said that the Agreement needed to be clari- 
fied and that it should be jointly administered by the United 
States and Japan instead of by Japan alone.^^ 

On April 27, 1921, the California legislature passed a 
resolution urging Congress to pass an exclusion law. On 
May 18, 1923, it passed another resolution urging the ex- 
clusion of aliens ineligible to citizenship.^^ 

On March 24, 1924, the House Committee on Immigra- 
tion and Naturalization made a report, entitled ^'Restric- 
tion of Immigration," accompanying H. R. 7995, part of 
which is as follows: 

'The Supreme Court of the United States has decided 
that certain nationals of oriental countries are not entitled 
to be naturalized as citizens of the United States under our 
naturalization laws. . . . The Committee feels justified in 
offering a provision that persons ineligible to citizenship 
. shall not be admitted as 'immigrants'. All must agree that 
nothing can be gained by permitting to be built up in the 
United States, colonies of those who cannot, under the law, 
become naturalized citizens, and must therefore owe 
allegiance to another government. 

"A majority of the committee has been favorably dis- 
posed to such a policy for two years, and careful investiga- 
tion has strengthened that sentiment until it has become 
the settled conviction of practically the entire committee. 

"Considerable opposition has been offered to this provi- 
sion by or on behalf of Japan, but no other nation affected 
thereby has offered protest. . . . 

"As far as concerns conflict with the Gentlemen's Agree- 
ment the committee is somewhat handicapped in reaching 
a conclusion by a lack of information as to the exact pro- 
visions of that agreement. It consists of correspondence 

^ Annual Report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1920, 
pp. 18, 19. The Japanese Government declared its willingness to revise 
the Agreement. 

"California Statutes, 1921, p. 1774. 

"California Statutes, 1923, Chap. 60. 


between Japan and our Department of State which has not 
been made public and access to which cannot be had by 
this committee without permission of Japan, as explained 
in the letter of the Secretary of State. 

'This much is certain, however, as indicated by instruc- 
tions to immigration officials at the ports of entry. Under 
the agreement the United States bound itself to admit any 
Japanese who presents himself bearing Japan's passport, 
unless he be afflicted with contagious disease,^^ that is to 
say, the congressional prerogative of regulating immigration 
from Japan has been surrendered to the Japanese Govern- 
ment.^'^ That condition, coupled with the fact that the 
terms of the agreement are secret, would justify immediate 
cancellation of the agreement. 

"It is a curious fact that the Department of Labor, hav- 
ing charge of immigration, 'is not in possession of the Gen- 
tlemen's Agreement and never has been supplied with the 
same,' as stated in a letter from the Labor Department of 
February 15, 1924. ..." 

The agreement was consummated under direction of 
Theodore Roosevelt while President. He makes it clear, 
through official correspondence (amounting to a compact) 
with the Legislature of California, and by statements m 
his autobiography, that the real intent agreed upon with 
Japan, was to be more restrictive. Under this plan Japan 
was to prevent the coming of her people to continental 
United States so that the Japanese population therein 
would not increase, it being frankly explained by Roosevelt 
that an increase of Japanese in this country, with their ad- 
vantages in economic competition and general unassimila- 
bility, would be certain to lead to racial strife and possible 
trouble between the two nations. 

There is no question that the purpose of the agreement 
as thus explained by Roosevelt has not been carried out. It 

"The accuracy of this statement should be checked against Table XVI, 
Report of the Conunissioner-Gcneral of Immigration, 1922, which shows 
that 47 Japanese were debarred from entering the United States, but 
only 10 of whom were debarred because of contagious disease. 

"The italics are mine. 


is clearly established that the Japanese population of con- 
tinental United States has very materially increased during 
the operation of the agreement, partly by direct immigra- 
tion and partly by birth, and doubtless also partly by sur- 
reptitious entry. 

Japan declares that she has maintained the conditions 
of the agreement in good faith; and while not questioning 
her good faith, we are concerned in the result. In certain 
portions of the Pacific Coast the white race confronts the 
very conditions foreseen by Roosevelt. 

Since it is the earnest desire of the United States to con- 
tinue and maintain its friendship with Japan, a fair and 
effective remedy for this situation must be adopted at once. 

Arrival of Laborers 

Under the agreement thousands of Japanese women have 
come in as laborers, designated on the manifests and in 
the reports as such, and have performed the double duty 
of field laborers and mothers of families averaging five chil- 
dren. Even the stoppage of picture brides did not put an 
end to this immigration, for it continued to come and served 
the same purposes under the ^Kankodan bride' system. 

The surreptitious entries of Japanese, partly through 
Canada, but perhaps more extensively through Mexico, 
must be very great. The information before this commit- 
tee, from the Department of Labor and elsewhere, shows 
that thousands leaving Japan with passports for South 
America worked their way back through Mexico and the 
Imperial Valley into California. While the Gentlemen's 
Agreement continues in force, offering a bar to registration 
and while our laws make surreptitious entries immune to 
deportation after five years' residence, and place the bur- 
den of proof upon our department officials, these surrepti- 
tious entries cannot be guarded against. 

It has been suggested that Japan be placed under the 
quota, since the immigration from that country under the 
1890 census would thus be reduced to a minimum. It has 


been stated that Japan would accept that solution. That 
plan, however, is most objectionable, because it would at 
once place Japan's nationals in the United States in conflict 
with our naturalization laws, and it would also discriminate 
in favor of the Japanese as against all other Asiatic races 
ineligible to citizenship. 

In considering this feature of the bill and Japan's pro- 
tests, it should be borne in mind that while we seek only 
to protect our citizens in this matter against the influx of 
unassimilable aliens ineligible to citizenship, and are not 
discriminating against Japan in the matter, Japan herself, 
in the exercise of a similarly wise protection for her own 
people, excludes the Chinese and Koreans and discrimi- 
nates thereby against people of her own color in both cases, 
and against the people of one of her Provinces in one case. 

Position of English-Speaking Countries on the 

The United States has acquired more Japanese popula- 
tion than any other English-speaking country in the world; 
and this increase of Japanese population within our ter- 
ritory has occurred during the understanding between the 
two Governments that such increase would be unwise in 
the interests of both nations. 

Great Britain many years ago made a treaty with her 
ally, Japan, whereby the nationals of Japan were to have 
favored consideration for residence and citizenship in all 
the dominions of the Empire; but with the proviso that 
any dominion could except this arrangement by notice be- 
fore that treaty became effective. 

South Africa, Austraha, and New Zealand promptly gave 
the necessary notice and provided by various methods for 
absolute exclusion of Japanese immigration, an action 
which Japan has never protested. Canada failed to take a 
similar action, but later sought to remedy the omission by 
a Gentlemen's Agreement with Japan, limiting yearly ad- 
mission from Japan to 400. This agreement has not worked 



satisfactorily in Canada, and the Dominion Parliament in 
May, 1922, requested the Government to take immediate 
action looking to excluding further oriental immigration. 

Time to Remedy the Situation 

It would appear from these facts that the United States 
has been grossly lax in permitting the increase in her ter- 
ritory of an unassimilable population ineligible for citizen- 
ship, and that she has deferred too long the adoption of 
remedial measures. 

The exclusion of aliens ineligible for citizenship has been 
strongly urged on Congress by the American Legion, the 
American Federation of Labor, and the National Grange, 
under resolutions adopted unanimously by the respective 
national conventions of those organizations from year to 
year. The absence of any political issue in the matter is 
sufficiently demonstrated by the widely different composi- 
tions and purposes of these national organizations, all im- 
bued, however, by a strong spirit of Americanism."^^ 

So far as a student of this question may pass judgment 
upon the motives impelling both parties to the controversy, 
to adopt the policy which culminated in the passage by 
Congress of exclusive legislation in the Act of 1924, it may 
safely be assumed that various cabinets in power in Japan 
throughout the critical period, have been afraid of a reper- 
cussion of sentiment, should they yield by negotiations to 
the American demand of exclusion on the basis in force 
respecting the Chinese in the United States. On the other 
hand, the Secretaries of State of the United States were 
reluctant to press for a solution of a situation which might 
result equally in respect to the administration which they 
represented in a political overturn at the next election, 
should such a policy precipitate a crisis. The difficulties of 
such a situation have unquestionably been aggravated by 
the fact that throughout the many years during which the 
problem of oriental immigration has been agitated in and 

"H. Kept. No. 350, 68th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 6-9. 


out of Congress, the Japanese Government has persistently- 
refused to permit the pubhcation of the correspondence 
upon which the Gentlemen's Agreement was based. So 
rigid had been the ban placed upon any disclosures respect- 
ing the interchange of views, that the Committees of Con- 
gress charged with the responsibility of the preparation of 
immigration legislation had been unable to form an inde- 
pendent judgment as to the terms of the engagement en- 1 
tered into during Mr. Roosevelt's administration at the ' 
White House. On the other hand no one could have known 
better than Mr. Roosevelt that in entering upon an agree- 
ment which was in effect a treaty without complying with 
the constitutional requirement that an international agree- 
ment be submitted to the Senate for approval, we were 
laying the groundwork for precisely such a political reac- 
tion as developed upon the publication of the Japanese 

In March, 1924, the House Committee on Immigration 
and Naturalization reported an immigration bill (H. R. 
7995), section 12 (b) of which provided that ''no alien in- 
eligible to citizenship shall be admitted to the United 
States unless such alien (1) is admissible as a non-quota 
immigrant under the provisions of subdivisions (b), (d) or 
(g) of section 4; or (2) is the wife or unmarried child under 
18 years of age of an immigrant admissible under such sub- 
division (d), and is accompanying or following to join him; 
or (3) is not an immigrant as defined in section 3." These 
exceptions would admit persons returning from a tempo- 
rary visit abroad, merchants, ministers, and university pro-; 
fessors, and bona fide students. Despite previous protests 
of Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes and Ambassador 
Hanihara, the House adopted the immigration bill contain- ^ 
ing this exclusion clause on April 12, 1924, by a vote of 1 
323-71 (37 not voting). '^'^ No specific vote was taken, how- 

The record of previous attempts to reach a solution of the immigra- 
tion problem by treaty or negotiation is not such as to encourage further 
efforts along this line. See remarks of Representative John C. Box, May 
15. 1924 on this topic. 
" Congressional Record, April 12, 1924, p. 6450. 



ever, on the exclusion clause, and Representative Burton of 
iOhio was the only one to protest against it.^^ 

On April 10, 1924, Secretary Hughes addressed a letter 
to Senator Colt, chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Immigration, enclosing a note from the Japanese Ambas- 
isador, in which the latter asserted that the passage of the 
exclusion bill would have ^'grave consequences" upon the 
"otherwise happy and mutually advantageous relations be- 
tween Japan and the United States." Following the origi- 
: nal suggestion of Secretary Hughes, the Senate Committee 
had proposed to except from the quota provisions of the bill 
I (S. 2576) '^an alien entitled to enter the United States 
' under the provisions of a treaty or an agreement relating 
solely to immigration." The Gentlemen's Agreement 
would therefore be continued, while the quota would be 
applied also to the Japanese, admitting only 146 a year. 
Ij On April 8, Senator Reed of Pennsylvania, the author of 
I the Senate bill, declared the Japanese ^^are a proud people, 
1 everybody knows that, and they would resent an exclusion 
I law just as we would resent an exclusion law passed by 
I Japan." On the 9th he said that the quota would reduce 
i Japanese immigration by fourteen-fifteenths.^^ But Sena- 
! tor McKellar opposed the quota suggestion: ''Whenever we 
1 permit a quota of 146, we have established a principle by 
I which in the future Japanese can come in here as the sub- 
! jeets of other nations come in. To that I am opposed . . . 
because we can never assimilate that race with ours." 

Although the Hanihara letter was printed in the Record 
for April 11, it was not discussed until April 14. At that 
: time the late Senator Lodge moved that the proposed 
' amendment be discussed in executive session since it re- 
j lated to foreign relations. The Senate thereupon went into 
' secret executive session for 50 minutes, after which debate 
upon the floor was reopened. The Hanihara letter was 
brought into the discussion by Senator Lodge who charac- 

""Ibid., p. 6441. 

'"Cnriqrcssinnal Record, April 8, 1924, p. 5992. Cf. the debate, April 2, 
1924. p. 5601. 

'"Ibid., April 9. 1924, p. 6139. "/bzrf., p. 6155. 


terized it as "improper/' a letter which contained a 'Veiled 
threat" against the United States. 'The letter of the JapJ 
anese Ambassador . . . has created a situation whichi 
makes it impossible for me to support the pending amend- ! 
ment. . . . The amendment has now assumed the dignity 
of a precedent, and I never will consent to establish any 
precedent, which will give any nation the right to think, 
that they can stop by threats or compliments the action ol 
the United States when it determines who shall come within | 
its gates and become part of its citizenship." 

Senator Reed, although the Committee had originally 
favored the continuation of the Gentlemen's Agreement, j| 
said, ''Now, however, Mr. President, ... I think the situ-' 
ation has changed. I think it ceases to be a question 
whether this is a desirable method of restricting Japanese 
immigration. The letter of the Japanese Ambassador puts 
the unpleasant burden upon us of deciding whether we will 
permit our legislation to be controlled by apprehension of 
'grave consequences' with other nations if we do not follow 
a particular line of legislative conduct. I, for one, feel com- 
pelled, on account of that veiled threat, to vote in favor 
of the exclusion and against the committee amendment. 

"I say that with great regret, because I believe that this 
action, which is forced upon us, means the waste of muchj 
of the results of twenty years of excellent diplomacy. Itj 
means the waste of much of the good feeling that followed! 
the ratification of the Four-Power treaty, and it means a 
loss of part of the good relations that followed the prompt J 
and friendly action of America after the Japanese earth- 
quake of last year. When I vote against the committee 
amendment I expect to do so with a sad heart." 

On the other hand, Senator Sterling (South Dakota) 
said, "If we are going to exclude Japanese immigrants, letj 
us exclude them because it is a wholesome thing, the right 
thing, the just thing to do for the United States and for 
the American people, and let us not make the letter of the 

Congressional Record, April 14, 1924, p. 6498. 
^'Ibid., p. 6499. 


Japanese ambassador the pretext of our action here today. 
. . He pointed out that the Japanese ambassador had 

expressly recognized the sovereign right of the United 
States to exclude immigrants. 

On the same day the Senate rejected the proposed amend- 
ment recognizing the Gentlemen's Agreement, by a vote of 
76-2 (18 not voting) .^^ On April 15 it adopted a new 
amendment, providing for the exclusion of ''an alien in- 
eligible to citizenship" without the yeas and nays being 
called for.^^ And on the following day the same amend- 
ment was passed again by a vote of 71-4 (21 not voting). 
On April 18, the Senate voted to strike out all of the House 
bill (H. R. 7995) except the enacting clause, and substitute 
the Senate bill. This bill passed by 62-6 (28 not voting) 
and was thereupon sent to conference, five managers being 
appointed. On April 19, the House likewise agreed to a 
conference and appointed five managers.^^ The House bill 
provided that exclusion should become effective July 1, 

1924, while the Senate bill made it effective at once. 

On April 20, another note from Mr. Hanihara was re- 
leased, in which he said he did not intend the words ^'grave 
consequences" to be considered a ^Veiled threat." But 
this had no effect on Congress. 

The Conference committee, representing the Senate and 
the House, held meetings on April 25, 26, 29, 30 and May 
1, 3, and 6. The President of the United States, some time 
before May 1, suggested that the immigration bill postpone 
the application of the exclusion provision until March 1, 

1925, subject to this stipulation: 

'That the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply 
to the nationals of those countries with which the United 
States, after the enactment of this act, shall have entered 
into treaties by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate for the restriction of immigration." "^^ 

'^Ibid., p. 6501. """Ibid., April 15, 1924, p. 6509. 

Co7if/rcs!<io)ml Record, April 15, 1924, p. 6578. 
''Ibid., April 16, p. 6656. Ibid., April 18, p. 6872. 

Ibid., April 19, pp. 6955, 6959. 
™Cf. romarks of Judge Raker, one of the conferees. Congressional 
Record, May 9, 1924, pp. 8483, 8486. 


The conferees, however, dechned to accept this provision 
which would have enabled the President to provide for the 
exclusion or ''restriction" of Japanese immigration by 
treaty. At about 5:30 P. M. on May 6, the Conference 
committee reached a full and final agreement. The com- 
mittee adjourned until May 7 for the purpose of signing 
the report. At that time the bill provided that the ex- 
clusion clause should go into effect on July 1, 1924 — which 
would give the Japanese now on the high seas an oppor- 
tunity to enter the United States. But on May 7 the 
President invited the Republican conferees to the White 
House, and asked that exclusion be postponed until March 
1, 1925. This suggestion — the second made by the Presi- 
dent — was adopted and the conference report was accord- 
ingly changed. As submitted to Congress it provided 'That 
this subdivision shall not take effect as to exclusion until 
March 1, 1925, before which time the President is requested 
to negotiate with the Japanese Government in relation to 
the abrogation of the present arrangement on this 
subject." ^1 

On May 8, the original conference report was laid before 
the House. On the following day it was attacked by Mr. 
Sabath, among others, who declared that in inserting new 
matter into the bill, the conference had exceeded its powers 
— a, point which the Chair, however, overruled. '^^ It was 
pointed out that under the conference bill the Japanese 
would be admitted on a quota basis until March 1, 1925. 
But according to Mr. Albert Johnson, chairman of the 
House Committee on Immigration, only about 80 would be 
thus admitted.*^^ 

Congressmen opposed postponing the date to March 1, 
1925, primarily because of the belief that the President 
would make a treaty which would set aside or at least sup- 
plant the exclusion law. 

On May 2, 1924, four members of the House Committee 

"Text of original conference report, Congressional Record, May 8, 
1924. p. 8424, H. Ropt. 688. 
pp. 8477, 8478. 
''Ibid., p. 8479. 



on Immigration sent a letter to the House conferees on 
the immigration bill, protesting against the settlement of 
the Japanese immigration question by treaty. "After the 
United States has agreed to consult the wishes and interests 
of Asia as to immigration it could not consistently refuse 
to consult the wishes of Europe and the rest of the world 
in the same manner." The letter pointed out that the 
executive branch of the United States Government had fre- 
quently vetoed restrictive immigration measures passed by 
Congress. It cited the veto of the Chinese exclusion Act of 
1879 by Hayes; the veto of a similar act of 1882 by Arthur; 
and the veto of the literacy test by Cleveland in 1897, Taft 
in 1913, and Wilson in 1917. "To pass the control of our 
immigration policy to the treaty-making power will com- 
pletely silence the voice of the House of Representatives 
therein. It would surrender a sovereign right and give to 
foreign countries a power which the country has never 

In debating the conference report, Mr. Raker declared, 
this provision, "is a waiver of the jurisdiction of the House 
to legislate on immigration;" an immigration treaty "is 
contrary to our form of government;" "the president has 
no power to enter into a treaty in regard to immigration 
whereby he may say that a foreign country can determine 
who to consult a§ to how immigration shall come into this 
country, because it is the yielding of sovereign power. . . . 
It means we waive, that it is a relinquishment; it is getting 
down on the knees and getting the President to enter into 
a treaty that we may waive our rights, that we may fail to 
do our duty, that we may violate the Constitution ; that we 
might become subservient to a foreign country, that we are 
afraid to enact the laws and enforce them, that we have 
sworn we would do in regard to the sovereign rights of the 
country." "^^ 

Other speeches in the House reflected the intensity of 
local feeling. At the close of the debate, the House adopted 

'* Letter printed in Conqressionnl Record, May 6, 1924, pp. 8193, 8194. 
" Congressional Record, May 9, 1924, pp. 8484, 8485. 


a motion by 191-171 (70 not voting), to recommit the bill 
to conference with instructions not to agree to postponing 
exclusion until March 1, 1925."^^ 

In the Senate, debate took place on the conference report 
before it had formally been presented to that body."^^ 
Senator Robinson attacked the clause authorizing the Presi- 
dent to negotiate as to the abrogation of the Gentlemen's 
Agreement on the ground that ''it would seem to constitute 
a recognition of the immigration question as a proper sub- 
ject for international negotiations; it would seem to be an 
abandonment of the position the Government of the United 
States heretofore has maintained — that the question as to 
who shall be admitted into the United States is purely a 
domestic question." He went on to say that the confer- 
ence report recognized the ''Gentlemen's Agreement as a 
treaty obligation, and they refuse to recognize the right or 
the power of Congress to legislate upon the subject until 
the so-called Gentlemen's Agreement has been abrogated 
or rescinded by a contract between this government and 
Japan which they petition the President to negotiate. If 
that principle is to be adopted, it constitutes a distinct 
recognition of the force of the Gentlemen's Agreement as 
superior to the right of Congress to legislate upon the 

Senator Lodge declared that the immigration treaties 
with China were a "mistaken policy". He went on to say 
that "In my judgment, only the Congress of the United 
States has that power . . . that is, the entire legislative 
body of the United States must say to the rest of the world, 
'We alone have the power to say who shall come into the 
United States as immigrants.' " 

Senator Reed said, "It is a matter of lively concern to 
all the Christian people of the United States, I think, that 
Christianity should be spread in foreign lands which at 
present embrace other religions. We have hundreds of mis- 

Congressional Record, May 9, 1924, p. 8498. 
" The report was not presented because of the action of the House. 
'"Congressional Record, May 8, 1924, p. 8344. 
''Ibid., p. 8344. ""Ibid., p. 8346. 



sionaries scattered all over Japan; but the people who are 
backing them up, the good Christian people of this country 
who send them out and support them there, are all of them 
concerned at the rough-shod way in which Congress has 
established its decision here. ... It is perfectly obvious 
that exclusion can be accomplished pleasantly as well as 
unpleasantly. It is perfectly obvious that exclusion is go- 
ing to be accomplished in one way or another, but the 
President is anxious, I know, from what he has said to us, 
to do it in such a way as shall not make the task of these 
missionaries in Japan any harder, as shall not create un- 
necessary friction for them, and shall not make our foreign 
relations any more difficult.'^ 

Senator Shortridge said, ^'Inasmuch as it is a domestic 
question, inasmuch as that domestic question is under the 
jurisdiction of the legislative branch of our Government, it 
follows that control of such a question is not within the 
treaty-making power of this Government under the Con- 
stitution." ^- 

As a result of the action of the House of Representatives, 
the conference bill was returned to the conference, where 
the provision postponing Japanese exclusion until March 
1, 1925, was removed. The revised conference report pro- 
vided that the exclusion of aliens ineligible to citizenship 
(section 13, c) should become effective July 1, 1924.^^ This 
report was accepted and the bill passed on May 15, by the 
House of Representatives by a vote of 308-62 (63 not vot- 
ing) and by the Senate by a vote of 69-9 (18 not voting). 
The immigration bill providing for the exclusion of aliens 
ineligible to citizenship — a provision effective July 1, 1924, 
was then sent to the President for his signature. 

On May 18, 1924, Cyrus E. Woods, United States Am- 
bassador to Japan, resigned, nominally on account of family 
reasons. But on leaving Japan he criticized severely the 
passage of the exclusion law. Upon his arrival in the 

'^Congressional Record, May 8, 1924, p. 8349. Ibid., p. 8350. 

Revised conference report, printed Congressional Record, May 12, 
p. 8642; May 15, p. 8816. 
'* Congressional Record, May 15, 1924, pp. 8836, 8882. 



United States he declared that the Japanese Government 
would, in his opinion, be willing to agree to almost any 
form of restrictive treaty.^^ Ambassador Woods' resigna- 
tion was followed by the return of Ambassador Hanihara to 
Japan. On May 26, 1924, President Coolidge signed the 
Immigration Act, which was accompanied by a statement 
criticizing the method used by Congress to obtain exclusion. 
The signature of the Act was followed by the formal protest 
of Japan, of May 31, 1924, to which the United States re- 
plied on June 16.^^ 

Sub-section (c) of Section 13 of the Act, aims to correct 
the situation which has been hereinbefore described by pro- 
viding that no alien ineligible to citizenship shall be admit- 
ted to the United States; that is to say, although the 
Japanese have figured almost exclusively in the controversy 
over this section, its provisions apply to a population 
amounting to perhaps a billion of people, of which the in- 
habitants of Japan comprise barely three-score millions.^"^ 
(In other words, it eliminates all previous discrimination in 
favor of Japan, as far as the other peoples of Asia are con- 
cerned.) However, when the exceptions to this provision 
are carefully examined, it will be observed that the sub- 
stance and clear intent of the Gentlemen's Agreement are 
embodied in the statute; that is to say, (1) an alien in- 
eligible for citizenship previously lawfully admitted to the 
United States, returning from a temporary visit abroad may 
be admitted; (2) an immigrant ineligible for citizenship 
who continuously, for at least two years immediately pre- 
ceding the time of his application for admission to the 
United States, has been and is seeking to enter the United 
States solely for the purpose of carrying on the vocation of 
minister of any religious denomination, or professor of a 
college, academy, seminary or university, and his wife and 

New York Times, June 17, 1924. 

*"For the effect of the ineligible to citizenship provision upon existing 
treaties, laws and customs, see article by A. W. Parker, "The Ineligible to 
Citizenship Provisions of the Act of 1924," American Journal oj Inter- 
national Law, Vol. XIX (1925), p. 30//. 

" HLnte.sman's Year Book for 1924, P- 1054, gives the Japanese population 
in 1922, as 59,460,252. 



his unmarried children under 18 years of age if accompany- 
ing or following to join him, may be admitted; or (3), an 
immigrant ineligible for citizenship who is a bona fide 
student at least 15 years of age and seeks to enter the 
United States solely for the purpose of study at an ac- 
credited school, college, academy, seminary or university, 
particularly designated by him and approved by the Secre- 
tary of Labor, may be admitted. These provisions are the 
exemptions provided for in sub-sections (b), (d) and (e), 
of Section 4. Finally, more important than these classes of 
persons are those groups defined in Section 3 of the Act, 
which entitles Japanese or any of the peoples to whom the 
provisions of the section apply, to admission at our ports.^^ 

A careful consideration of the provisions described in the 
preceding paragraph makes it clear that the essential dif- 
ference between the situation as it existed prior to the 
passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, and what may be 
expected to eventuate now that the law has gone into effect, 
lies in the fact that the United States Government will now 
determine the qualifications of any individual ineligible for 
citizenship seeking admission into the United States; that 
is to say, the responsibility for a determination of the 
ehgibility and good faith of such persons to enter regardless 
of the country of their origin, will be determined by the 
American Consul at the point of departure for our shores, 
and by the Immigration Inspectors at the ports of entry 
of the United States. To what extent the release of control 
by the Japanese Government over passports of persons 
seeking to enter contiguous territory to the United States, 
may affect surreptitious entries from Mexico and Canada, 
is yet impossible to determine. 

As was to be expected Japanese opinion was bitter 
against the law and for a while the situation might be called 

According to the Japan Chronicle, a leading EngHsh 
newspaper in Japan, no diplomatic event for many years 

**See Chapter VII for a list of such classes who may enter the United 


has aroused so much comment and excitement in 
Japan as the passage of the exclusion law in the United 

On April 20, 1924, fifteen Tokyo newspapers published a 
joint declaration calling the bill ''inequitable and unjust." 
The passage of the bill, in their opinion, "would cause a 
grave set-back to all glorious enterprises" which Japan and 
the United States had undertaken, particularly at the 
Washington Conference. 

The Osaka Asahi called the action of Congress a ''glaring 
breach of international etiquette" and a "deliberate insult." 
The jingoist Yorodzu said that America "has pounced upon 
us with drawn sword. . . . We must defend our honor and 
interest." It advised American missionaries to return home 
immediately. The Yomiuri said, "Must we meekly submit 
to this arrogant and tyrannical attitude?" The Tokyo 
Nichi Nichi said, "The honor of Japan has been mercilessly 
destroyed." Jiji called the anti- Japanese agitation a "grave 
insult to Japan." The Osaka Mainichi said that the ""na- 
tional honor of Japan" had been seriously hurt. The Tokyo 
Asahi called the exclusion law "harsh, cruel and unjust." 
Hochi said this "persecution" of the white races would lead 
to a union of Asiatic peoples. The chauvinistic magazine, 
Japan and the Japanese, said that the "selfish and arrogant" 
exclusion of colored people from the United States would 
engender great antipathy between the white and colored 
races. The Oriental Economist asked that the Japanese 
Government champion the cause of all Asiatics as regards 
America. Dr. Uesugi, a professor in Tokyo Imperial Uni- 
versity, noted for his chauvinistic writings, advocated the 
convocation of a Conference of Colored Races in Tokyo, 
to discuss means of resisting the treatment by America. 
Dr. Hayashi, a professor at Keio University, said that 
America's policy might necessitate the Formation of a 
League of Yellow Peoples. 

While the major portion of the criticism of the exclusion 
law dealt with its discriminatory features, a number of the 
more radical journals also expressed resentment that the 



United States should exclude Japanese immigrants from the 
United States, regardless of the means employed. 

In addition to government representatives, such promi- 
nent Japanese as Viscount Shibusawa, Baron Sakatani, and 
Viscount Goto protested against the act because of its ^'dis- 
criminatory" features. Cables protesting against the law 
were sent to the United States by the American Merchants' 
Association, the National Christian Council of Japan, the 
Japan League of Nations Association, the National Cham- 
ber of Commerce, the Imperial Education Association and 
the Association of American University Clubs in Japan. 

Anti- American demonstrations took place in some cities, 
one of which was occasioned by the suicide of a Japanese 
on account of the exclusion law. Boycotts of American 
merchants and moving picture films were started, but were 
soon dropped because they injured Japanese as much as 
American interests. 

On July 1, the date the exclusion law went into effect, 
both houses of the Japanese Diet passed resolutions protest- 
ing against the discriminatory act. And societies placarded 
Tokyo with signs, saying, ''Hate Everything American, 
and urging Japanese never to enter a "Church supported 
or guided by Americans or United States missionaries." 
Mass prayer meetings were also held at all the national 
Shinto shrines throughout the country. 

In the United States criticism from many quarters was 
directed against the method employed by Congress to 
achieve an end which it was contended was already being 
achieved by the Gentlemen's Agreement, or could have been 
achieved by other diplomatic means. The New York Times 
said that there was "no justification for the Senate's shock- 
ing disregard of the feelings of the Japanese. The proper 
way to solve the problem was through diplomatic channels. 
In wilfully ignoring this the Senate inflamed Japanese 
hatred of the United States and totally misrepresented the 
true attitude of the people of this country." 

The New York Herald Tribune called the action of Con- 

^ Editorial, May 27, 1924. 


gress "an unnecessary affront to Japan." The New York 
World said, 'This dehberate sabotage of our delicate inter- 
national relations had no other purpose than that of 
cadging for the votes of hot-heads upon the Pacific 
Coast." The Washington Post said, 'There was no occa- 
sion for the disagreeable happening, no difference in prin- 
ciple requiring it, and no exigency excusing it." ^- The 
Christian Science Monitor said, 'Tt is certain that the 
method is highly offensive to a Nation with whom the 
United States should take especial pains to remain on 
terms of peace. ... It was therefore as unwise as it was 
discourteous for the United States Congress to brand this 
intelligent and progressive Japanese people with a stigma 
only applicable to the most uncivilized and barbarous of 
Asiatic tribes." According to one survey, forty out of 
forty-four newspapers, east of Chicago, criticized the pass- 
age of this law by Congress.^^ 

In the West the Los Angeles Express said that ''Secretary 
Hughes is wholly right in his protest against exclusion." 
But the San Francisco Chronicle said, "It is no more dis- 
respectful to the Japanese than to the Chinese to exclude 
them by name." 

The News Bulletin of the Foreign Policy Association de- 
clared, "persistent agitation, inadvertently abetted by dip- 
lomatic ineptitude and culminating in Senatorial hysteria, 
threatens needlessly to wreck the most important achieve- 
ment of the Washington Conference. . . ." 

On the other hand, the Boston Transcript declared, 
"Congress was exactly and everlastingly right." The 
Hearst papers also took this point of view. 

A large number of organizations passed resolutions 
criticizing the passage of the exclusion law. At its annual 
meeting in December, 1923, the Federal Council of 
Churches of Christ in America, deplored as "unpatriotic 

^Ed., May 27, 1924. ''Ibid. 
«'Ed, June 1, 1924. ^Ed., May 21, 1924. 

"*Wile, F. W., Christian Science Monitor, April 26, 1924. 
"''Cf. "Exclusion or Quota for Japanese," Literary Digest, March 1, 1924. 
April 25, 1924. ^ Ed., June 19, 1924. 



and unchristian'' the discriminatory treatment of aliens, 
and advocated a non-discriminatory naturalization test.^^ 
The Administrative Committee of the Council also pro- 
tested against excluding ''aliens ineligible to citizenship," 
on the ground that it is ''unnecessarily and inevitably 
offensive." Similar resolutions criticizing the method used 
by Congress were passed by the Massachusetts Federation 
of Churches, the American Board of Commissioners for 
Foreign Missions, the National Council of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, the Conference of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, meeting at Springfield, Mass., the Northern 
Baptist Convention, the Committee representing the For- 
eign Missionary Boards of the United States, the General 
Synod of the Reformed Church in America, the Woman's 
American Baptist Foreign Missionary Society, the Woman's 
Union Missionary Society of America, the Methodist 
Episcopal Church South, the National Board of the Y. W. 
C. A., the American members of the Executive Committee 
of the World Sunday School Association, the World Peace 
Foundation, the National Chamber of Commerce at its 
annual meeting at Cleveland, and the National Committee 
on American-Japanese Relations. 

A group of prominent New York business and profes- 
sional men sent a cablegram to the American-Japanese So- 
ciety in Tokyo "deeply" deploring the unjustifiable things 
said during the exclusion debate in regard to Japan. The 
message was signed among others, by Henry W. Taft, 
George W. Wickersham, Thomas W. Lamont, Darwin P. 
Kingsley, and J. B. Millet.^^ 

Another cablegram was signed by 30 heads or Presidents 
Emeritus of leading American universities and colleges, 
regretting "the inconsiderate action of the American Con- 
gress, which does not represent the sentiments of the 
American people toward Japan." The author of the mes- 
sage was Charles W. Eliot, President Emeritus of Harvard, 
and among those who disapproved the action of Congress 

Hearings on S. 2576, cited, p. 55. 
""'New York Times, July 2, 1924. 


were David Starr Jordan, President Emeritus of Stanford 
University, and W. W. Campbell, President of the Univer- 
sity of California. 

On the other hand, the California American Legion, 
the State Federation of Labor, the Native Sons of the 
Golden West, and the State Grange, protested against 
the attempt of Ambassador Hanihara ''to influence the 
electorate of this country on a purely domestic question — 

Two editorials in The New York Times, for August 15 
and 19, 1924, concerning remarks of Mr. Yusuke Tsurumi 
at the Institute of Politics throw considerable light on 
the subject. 

''Better Understanding in Japan. 

"Even those who deplore the method of Congress in sub- 
stituting the Japanese Exclusion act for the Gentlemen's 
Agreement will question the statement of Japan's repre- 
sentative, Mr. Tsurumi, at the Institute of Politics, that 
the new act has had and will continue to have 'grave conse- 
quences' not only in Japan but throughout the world. 
Temporarily, to be sure, it caused a storm of anti-American 
feeling in Japan. But even the efforts of a few persons to 
use this to foster a boycott on American goods are now 
abandoned, and there are indications that the Japanese 
are beginning to realize that no insult was meant by the 
exclusion law. Indeed, it is perceived that the American 
Government has relieved the Japanese Government of the 
unpleasant task of restricting the exodus of Japanese labor- 
ers to America. 

"Had the law not been passed, and had the Japanese 
population on the coast continued to increase, there is no 
doubt that feeling would have become more bitter. As for 

New York Times, July 6, 1924. Also see article by C. G. Fenwick 
in American Journal of International Law, Vol. 18 (1924), p. 523, in 
which he stated: *'If the Japanese protest afjainst the exclusion provisions 
of the Immigration Act is weak on the side of law, it is strong on the 
side of common international courtesy and decent neighborly conduct." 

L.tcrary Digest, cited. 



the rest of the country, it is only necessary to recall the 
way in which the first Japanese loan was placed, and the 
rapidity with which the second loan has been taken, to 
show that there is absolute confidence in Japan. The finan- 
cial aid extended after the terrible earthqual^e is ample 
proof of the friendship which the American people have 
always felt toward Japan. 

'Tf by 'grave consequences' Mr. Tsurumi means merely 
a reorientation of the political situation in the Far East, 
he is undoubtedly right. This would have come, however, 
regardless of the action of the American Congress. It has 
long been understood by Japanese leaders that the Ameri- 
can Continent could not and would not be a suitable field 
for Japanese colonization. President Roosevelt made this 
quite clear during the negotiations leading up to the ^Gen- 
tlemen's Agreement' in 1907. Nor have his successors done 
anything to imply a change in this attitude. 

'Those in Japan interested in establishing Japanese colo- 
nies abroad will now have to return with renewed interest 
to the Asiatic mainland, and those seeking for Japan the 
commercial supremacy of the Far East will be able to 
oppose American rivalry with greater likelihood of popular 
support at home. 

"Of 'grave consequences' in the more serious meaning of 
the words there can be little real danger. Certainly Japan 
has nothing to fear from the United States. If Mr. Tsurumi 
wishes to do his part in conciliation, he has only to talk 
to his own people with the same commendable frankness 
which he has used at Williamstown, and explain to them 
that just as the Japanese would not welcome large and 
growing colonies of Americans in their midst, so the Amer- 
icans of the Pacific Coast fear the growth of large Japanese 
settlements in California and elsewhere. There is no ques- 
tion of racial 'inferiority.' Nor is there any intended insult 
to Japan. Mr. Tsurumi can bear witness to the deep-seated 
admiration and friendship of the American people for the 
people of Japan. Such a sentiment is not provocative of 
'grave consequences'." 


^'Through Japanese Eyes. 

"In stressing again that Japan was disturbed by the 
manner rather than by the fact of the exclusion of her 
people from the United States, Mr. Yusuke Tsurumi has 
helped to clear up a point but little understood in this 
country. The Japanese people, he explained in his closing 
lecture at the Institute of Politics, had become reconciled 
to the principle of exclusion at the time of the Gentlemen's 
Agreement. What they resented was the abrogation of that 
agreement and the substitution for it of legislation which 
implied that Japan had not kept the faith. This to them 
was a blow at their national honor. 

"It was the method rather than the substance which 
American friends of Japan also deplored. They questioned 
the necessity of abrogating the Gentlemen's Agreement and 
denounced such action as discourteous and unpolitic. The 
activities of the Senate, in particular, seemed to be based 
on a desire to avenge a fancied threat rather than to deal 
tactfully with a delicate situation. Not even the unwise 
use by the Japanese Ambassador of the phrase 'grave con- 
sequences' warranted the brusque and unmannerly action 
of the Senate. 

"Desirable as it is for the American people to understand 
the Japanese point of view, it is essential for the Japanese 
to understand the American point of view. Rightly or 
wrongly, immigration was the question — in fact, the sole 
question — in American eyes. Disregarding the criticism 
of those fanatics who claimed that Japan had not lived up 
to her part of the Gentlemen's Agreement, the underlying 
motive of the overwhelming majority of the members of 
Congress who supported the Immigration Restriction bill 
was to handle the entire problem as a domestic issue, and, 
in the CAse of the Asiatics, to embody in permanent form 
the restrictions which in the past had been contained in 
treaties and agreements. Rightly or wrongly, the Ameri- 
can people were opposed to any further immigration of 
non-assimilable races. A few of the more farseeing felt 



that by settling the matter now once and for all it would 
cease to be a source of friction, and the unassimilable aliens 
would be less exposed to local jealousies and animosities. 
In so far as the Japanese in particular were concerned, these 
observers felt that the history of Chinese exclusion pointed 
the way. So long as the Chinese continued to increase in 
numbers race prejudice grew. Since they have declined 
race prejudice has declined. The bitterest opposition to the 
Japanese in California is in those regions where they are 
numerically the strongest. It is a safe prediction that when 
their numbers fall resentment against them wall gradually 

'Tt is highly regrettable that the passage of the exclusion 
bill should have led many Japanese to think, in the words 
of Mr. Tsurumi, 'that America has no confidence in the 
Japanese Government, in its pledges and its integrity, and 
does not care a fig for its friendship and cooperation.' This 
is the reverse of the truth. If Mr. Tsurumi can make this 
as clear to his own people as he has made clear to us the 
Japanese point of view, he will have rendered a further 
service to Japanese-American friendship." 

The Japanese Government has always protested against 
any legislation in the United States that tended to be or to 
appear to be discriminatory. It protested vigorously 
against the San Francisco school ordinance of 1906 and the 
California land law of 1913. In a note of June 4, 1913, the 
Japanese Ambassador declared that in the opinion of the 
Japanese Government: 

"The measure is unfair and intentionally racially dis- 
criminatory, and, looking at the terms of the treaty between 
our two countries, they are equally well convinced that the 
act in question is contrary to the letter and spirit of that 
compact and they moreover believe that the enactment 
is at variance with the accepted principles of just and 
equal treatment upon which good relations between 

^•"See WiUiard, White Australian Policij, for Japan's protests to Aus- 
tralia against the latter's restrictions against Oriental immigration. 


friendly nations must, in the final analysis, so largely 

He said further: 

'The provisions of the law, under which it is held that 
Japanese people are not eligible to American citizenship, 
are mortifying to the Government and people of Japan, 
since the racial distinction inferable from those provisions 
is hurtful to their just national susceptibility. The ques- 
tion of naturalization, however, is a political problem of 
national and not international concern. So long, therefore, 
as the distinction referred to was employed in relation to 
rights of purely political nature the Imperial Government 
had no occasion to approach the Government of the United 
States on the subject. But when that distinction is made 
use of, as in the present case, for the purpose of depriving 
Japanese subjects of rights and privileges of a civil nature, 
which are freely granted in the United States to other 
aliens, it becomes the duty of the Imperial Government, in 
the interests of the relations of cordial friendship and good 
understanding between the two countries, to express frankly 
their conviction that the racial distinction, which at best 
is inaccurate and misleading, does not afford a valid basis 
for the discrimination on the subject of land tenure." 

As far as Japanese residents in the United States were 

''The Imperial Government claim for them fair and equal 
treatment, and are unable either to acquiesce in the unjust 
and obnoxious discrimination complained of, or to regard 
the question as closed so long as the existing state of things 
is permitted to continue." 

Ever since about 1911, general immigration bills have 
contained a clause barring immigrants ''ineligible to citizen- 
ship" unless already excluded by treaty or agreement. But 
at Japan's protest against the mere use of these words, they 
were dropped. Such a phrase was originally inserted in 
the immigration bill of 1917, but was again omitted at 

U. S. Forcifjn Relations, 1913, p. 633. 
'"/6i£f., p. 653; cf. also ibid., 1914, p. 434. 


Japan's protest, the ^'barred zone" clause, which did not 
apply to China or Japan, being used instead. 

On the other hand, prominent Americans have been 
just as opposed as the Japanese to any discriminatory 

As far as treatment of Japanese in the United States is 
concerned, President Roosevelt protested against the pas- 
sage of an exclusion law, against the San Francisco school 
ordinance, and against anti-Japanese measures introduced 
into the California legislature in lOOT.i^^ In the 1909 Cah- 
fornia legislature about 17 anti- Japanese measures were 
introduced but dropped at the intervention of President 

In his Autobiography President Roosevelt declared that 
exclusion was ^'fundamentally a sound and proper attitude, 
an attitude which must be insisted upon, and yet which 
can be insisted upon in such a manner and with such 
courtesy and such sense of mutual fairness and reciprocal 
obligation and respect as not to give any just cause cf 
offense to Asiatic peoples." 

In a letter to Hon. William Kent of February 4, 1909, 
Roosevelt expressed himself in favor of a reciprocal ar- 
rangement between Japan and the United States which 
would keep American laborers out of Japan and Japanese 
laborers out of the United States. 

The assurances of President Taft that the treaty of 1911 
would continue exclusion prevented the California legis- 
lature from passing an anti- Japanese land law in 1911. In 
1913 President Wilson protested against the proposed land 
law, declaring "Invidious discrimination will inevitably 
draw in question the treaty obligations of the government 
of the United States. I register my very earnest and re- 
spectful protest against discrimination in this case." He 

Buell, R. L., The Development of the Anti-Japanese Agitation in the 
United States. 

Roosevelt, Theodore, An Autobiography (1913), p. 416. 
Ibid., p. 411. 

Printed in "Japanese Immigration and Colonization," brief prepared 
by V. S. McClatchy (1921), S. Doc. 55, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 62. 


sent Secretary of State Bryan to Sacramento to confer with ,| 
the legislature, but without the desired result. In 1916 the I 
American State Department brought its influence to bear :i 
against the proposed bill excluding aliens ineligible to cit- ; 
izenship. In April, 1919, Secretary of State Lansing wired 
from the Paris Peace Conference that ''it would be par- = 
ticularly unfortunate" to have anti-Japanese legislation j 
passed by the California legislature at that time. Just | 
before the adoption of the 1920 land law in California, 
acting Secretary of State Davis said, ''No outcome of the 
California movement will be acceptable to the country at 
large that does not accord with existing and applicable 
provisions of law and, what is equally important, with the ' 
national instinct of justice." Finally, on February 8, 1924, 
Secretary of State Hughes protested against the enactment 
of a discriminatory exclusion measure. 

Thus, while Congress was within its rights when it pro- 
vided for exclusion of all persons ineligible to citizenship, 
some persons felt and still feel that we accomplished our 
end in a rather undiplomatic way. No treaty was violated, 
since the Gentlemen's Agreement was never ratified by the 
Senate of the United States. The exclusion clause can • 
hardly be called "discrimination" since it is a general propo- ] 
sition applying not only to all Asiatic peoples but to 
all others ineligible for citizenship for other than racial 
reasons. It is easy to understand, however, that past 
favors to the jealous pride of the awakened Japanese people 
could make them believe that such action as taken by 
Congress was discriminatory. Yet it must be recognized I 
by all thoughtful persons that restriction, even absolute 
exclusion, does not signify racial hatred. Restriction does 
not mark a nation as the inferior of any or all otJiers. 
Many individuals of any race may be superior by every 
just standard of measurement to many individuals of the 
white race. Yet true assimilation requires racial compati- 

*^See section 28, sub-section (c) for definition of term "ineligible for I 
citizenship." \ 


I bility, and any irreconcilable resistance to amalgamation 
K and social equality cannot be ignored. 
I Kipling recognized this when he wrote 

'East is East, and West is West, 
And never the twain shall meet — " 

For America, the Japanese are a non-assimilable people, 
as are all Asiatics, and little could be gained by the con- 
' tinuance of a policy contrary to American interests and 
• which removed from our control a universally recognized 
[ domestic problem. This was recognized by both nations. 
' Japan, as well as the United States, knew that sooner or 
later exclusion was coming, for it was inevitable. In enter- 
ing upon the Gentlemen's Agreement Japan recognized the 
reasonableness of the American contention, that subjects 
of that Empire be excluded both as a matter of right, and 
as an economic necessity,^^^ in addition to the obvious non- 
assimilation argument. Certainly we have dealt with Japan 
in a more honorable manner than with China, although this 
cannot be given as an excuse for our recent action toward 
the former. 

The whole controversy with Japan has been over the 
method of bringing about effective exclusion of Japanese 
laborers, who, according to Jenks and Lauck, are not as 
desirable as the Chinese laborers. Now that exclusion 
has been accomplished by legislative action rather than by 
treaty and diplomatic negotiations, it would seem wise to 
keep the recent controversy ''closed", despite the fact that 
the Japanese ambassador in March, 1925, expressed the 
hope that this government would reconsider its exclusion 
policy. Recent events have tended to dispel virtually all 
feelings of ill-will in both nations.^^^ From the White 
House and our State Department have come statements 
that our relations with Japan are serene, friendly and 

"''On this subject see Matheson, R. O., "The Myth of Japanese Effi- 
ciency," with Reply by Kavvakami, K. K., in Current History, May, 1927. 
Jenks and Lauck, The Immigration Problem, p. 252. 

"^See Literary Digest, January 3, 1925, "Squelching a Japanese War- 



untroubled. From the Japanese Government have come 
official assurances of friendship. Extraordinary utiliza- 
tion was made of the appointment of the new Japanese 
Ambassador, Tsuneo Matsudaira, to emphasize the affec- 
tionate regard in which the two countries hold each other. 
Secretary Hughes broke a diplomatic precedent by issuing 
a formal statement declaring that Japan had paid this 
country a signal honor by sending such a man as her 
envoy and that ''we can look forward now to the most 
cordial relations with Japan." From the White House has 
come word that President Coolidge and his Administration 
look upon the present rulers of Japan ''as candid exponents 
of international friendship." Japan, says the Detroit Free 
Press, "surely can no longer be in doubt regarding the 
friendly desire and intent of the people of the United 
States." It is to be hoped that the friendship between these 
two great nations will grow more cordial in the near future 
and ripen into a deep and mutual understanding on all 
problems that touch their respective interests. 


Note. A bibliography on Immigration might be extended almost 
indefinitely. Especially is this true of those references included under 
"primary sources" and under magazine articles, pamphlets, etc. Only 
the most important articles that have appeared in recent years are 
hsted here. Magazine articles on the subject are legion. Reference 
to any standard bibliography will give a list of articles and pamphlets 
on the subject prior to 1921, hundreds of which have been read in the 
preparation of this study. Only the recent ''hearings" are listed here. 
My guide in the preparation of this bibliography has been to list those 
references, primary and secondary, which have influenced legislation 
and public opinion on the subject of immigration, especially within 
recent years. 

Primary Sources 

Abbott, Edith: Historical Aspects of the Immigration Problem, 1926. 
Abbott, Edith: Immigration, Select Documents and Case Records, 

Admission of Mentally Defective Children, Hearings before the House 
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 67th Congress, 4th 
Session on H. R. 12470 and H. R. 12479, Dec. 5, 1922 and Jan. 
16, 1923, Serial 4-C. 

Admission of Near East Refugees, Hearings before the House Commit- 
tee on Immigration and Naturalization, 67th Congress, 4th session, 
on H. R. 13269, Dec. 15-19, 1922, Serial 1-C, and Serial 2-C on 
Dec. 5, 1922. 

Alien Seamen — Insane Aliens — Statements on Various Immigration 
Problems, Hearings before the House Committee on Immigration 
and Naturalization, 67th Congress, 4th Session on H. R. 14273, 
Jan. 30 and Feb. 6, 1923, Serial 6-C. 

Amendment to Immigration Law, Hearing before the Senate Committee 
on Immigration, 67th Congress, 4th session on S. 4222, Jan. 24, 

Analysis of America's Melting Pot, Hearings before the House Commit- 
tee on Immigration and Naturalization, 68th Congress, 3rd ses- 
sion, Nov. 21, 1922, Serial 7-C, Statement of H. H. Laughlin. 

Annals of Congress, Vol. II. 

Archives of Maryland. 

Armstrong, Edward: Correspondence between William Penn and 

James Logan and Others. 
Bennett, W. S., Effects of Immigration on Municipal Politics. Report 

of National Conference for Good City Government. 




Bureau of Immigration, Immigration Laws and Rules, pamphlets, re- 
ports, etc. 

Bureau of Naturalization, Naturalization Laws and Regulations, yjamph- 
lets, reports, Federal Citizenship Text-book, Teacher's Manual, 
Citizenship Instruction, etc. 

Calif omia and the Oriental, by State Board of Control of California. 

California Immigration and Housing Commission, bulletins, reports, etc. 

California Statutes. 

^Colonial Charters, 1639 and '92. 
"^Commissioner-General of Immigration, Annual Reports (very valuable). 

Commissioner of Naturalization, Annual Reports. 

Congressional Debates of 1835-6, Vol. XII. 

Congressional Digest, July- Aug., 1923. 

Congressional Globe of 1837-8, 1844-5. 

Congressional Record. An extensive research has been made in the 

Record for a number of years. 
Dallas', Edition of Laws of Pennsylvania. 

Decisions of Supreme Court of the United States and of other lesser 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Renorts. 

Department of Labor, Annual Reports of the Secretary of Labor, Im- 
migration Laws and Rules, pamphlets, etc. (very important). 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education, Bulletins and Re- 
ports on Immigration and Americanization. 

Deportation of Aliens, House Report No. 991, April 26, 1926, 69th 
Congress, 1st session. 

Deportation of Aliens, House Report No. 1348, June 2, 1926, 69th Con- 
gress, 1st Session. 

Deportation of Alien Criminals, Gunmen, Narcotic Dealers, Defectives, 
etc. Hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and 
Naturalization, March 25, 26, April 13, 1926. Hearings No. 69.1.11, 
69th Congress, 1st session. 

Deportation of Alien Seamen. Hearings before the House Committee 
on Immigration and Naturalization, 69th Congress, 1st session, 
Mav 14, 1926. Hearing No. 69.1.15. Also on the same subject, 
Hearing No. 69.1.5, Jan. 21 and 22, 1926. 

Elliott's Debates. 

Emigration and Immigration — Legislation and Treaties — International 
Labor Office, Geneva, 1922. 

Europe as an Emigrant Exporting Continent and the United States 
as an Immigrant-Receiving Nation. Hearings before the House 
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 68th Congress, 1st 
session, March 8, 1924, Serial 5 A. It contains important studies 
and official reports on migration problems down to Nov. 19, 1924. 

Executive Document No. 70, 25th Congress, 2nd session. 

Executive (House) Document 54, 29th Congress, 2nd session. 

Federalist, The. 

Hearings of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. 
Hearings of the Senate Committee on Immigration. 
Hening: Statutes, 



House Report No. 1040, 25th Congress, 2nd session. 
House Report No. 54, 29th Congress, 2nd session. 
House Doc. No. 359, 34th Congress, 1st session. 
House Report No. 3792, 50th Congress, 2nd session. 
House Doc. No. 1527, 63d Congress, 3d session. 

House Report No. 1621, 67th Congress, 4th session, February 15, 1923. 

House Report No. 350, 68th Congress, 1st session. 

Immigration Commission, Report of, 1911. (42 vols.) 

Immigration for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1922. Hearings before the 
House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 67th Con- 
gress, 2nd session, Serial 6-B, August 22, 1922. 

Immigration and Labor. Hearings before the House Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization, 67th Congress, 4th session on 
H. R. 7826 and H. R. 11730, Jan. 3-24, 1923, Serial 5-6. 

Immigration of Wives and Children of Declarants. Hearings of House 
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 69th Congress, 
1st session, May 24, June 17, June 24 and July 2, 1926. Hearing 
No. 69.1.16. 

Immigration Restriction League, Reports, etc., of. 
Japanese Immigration Legislation. Hearings before the Senate Com- 
mittee on Immigration, 68th Congress, 1st session on S. 2576, March- 
11-15, 1924. 
Jefferson's Notes on Virginia. 
Jefferson's Writings. 
Journal of Congress for 1788. 
Lowell, Public Opinion and Popular Government. 
Madison's State Papers. 

Malloy: Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 
Maryland State Laws, 1833. 

Massachusetts Commission on Immigration, Report on the Problem of 

Immigration in Massachusetts, 1914. 
Massachusetts Laws, 1820. 

Medical Problems of Immigration — Papers presented at the 37th An- 
nual Meeting of American Academy of Medicine, June 1, 1912. 
Moore: Digest of International Law, Vol. IV. 

National Origins Provision. Hearings before the House Committee on 
Inamigration and Naturalization, 69th Congress, 2nd session, Jan. 
18, 19, and 26, 1927. Hearing No. 69.2.1. 

New Jersey Archives. 

New Jersey, Commission of Immigration, Report, 1914. 
New York (State), Bureau of Industries and Immigration, Annual Re- 
port, 1911. 
New York Laws, 1824. 
Niles' Register. 

North Carolina Colonial Documents. 
Pennsylvania Colonial Records. 

Preferences Within Quotas. Hearings before the House Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization, 69th Congress, 1st session, April 
29, 1926. Hearing No. 69.1.13. 

Report of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on "Foreign Crim- 



inals and Paupers", August 16, 1856, 34th Congress, 1st session, 

House Document No. 359. 
Report of the Committee on Selective Immigration of the Eugenics 

Committee of the United States of America, 1924. 
Report of U. S. Industrial Commission, XV, 1901. 

Restriction of Immigration. Hearings before the House Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization, 6Sth Congress, 1st session, on 
H. R. 5, H. R. 101, and H. R. 561, December 26, 1923 to January 
19, 1924. Serial 1-A. 

Restriction of Immigration, Hearings before the House Committee, 
Jan. 14,-Feb. 12, 1924, Serial 2-A. 

Richardson: Messages and Papers of the Presidents. 

Roosevelt, T.: Aji Autobiography. 

Selective Immigration Legislation. Hearings before the Senate Com- 
mittee on Immigration, 68th Congress, 1st session, on S. 2365 and 
S. 2576, Feb. 13-April 8, 1924. 

Senate Document No. 173, 28th Congress, 2nd session. 

Senate Document No. 161, 29th Congress, 2nd session. 

Senate Report No. 386, 33d Congress, 1st session. 

Senate Document No. 185, 54th Congress, 2nd session. 

Senate Document No. 1087, 62nd Congress, 3d session. 

Senate Report No. 17, 67th Congress, 1st session, April 28, 1921. 

Statutes of the United States. 

Transactions of the Commonwealth Club of California, pamphlets, etc., 
contain much valuable original material. 

Tucker's Edition, Blackstone's Commentaries. 

United States Bureau of the Census ; Census Reports. 

United States Bureaus of Immigration and Naturalization: Annual Re- 
ports and other pamphlets. 

United States Bureau of Statistics: Pamphlets, reports, etc. 

United States Congress: Documents, Record, Reports, etc. 

United States Laws, Vol. I, Acts of 1790 and '95. 

United States Library of Congress: List of References on American 

Immigration, etc. 
Winthrop: Life and Letters of Gov. Winthrop. 
Works of Benjamin Franklin: ed. by John Bigelow. 

Secondary References 

Addams, Jane: Newer Ideals of Peace, 1907. 

Addams, Jane: Twenty Years at Hull-House, 1910. 

Americanization Studies (11 Vols.), A. T. Burns, Director. 

Annals, The, Jan., 1921. 

Antin, Mary: The Promised Land, 1912. 

Antin, Mary: They Who Knock at Our Gates, 1914. 

Balch, Emily G.: Our Slavic Fellow-Citizens, 1910. 

Bernard, L. L.: Introduction to Social Psychology, 1926. 

Bernheimer, C. S.: The Russian Jew in the United States. 1905. 


BiTTiNGER, Lucy F.: The Germans in Colonial Times, 190L 
Blakeslee, G. J. ed.: Japan and Japanese American Relations, 1912. 
Boas, Franz: Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants, 

Boas, Franz: The Mind of Primitive Man. 1911. 
BoGARDus, E. S.: Fundamentals of Social Psychology, 1924. 
Brandenburg, B.: Imported Americans, 1904. 

Bromwell, W. J.: History of Immigration into the United States, 

Burgess, Thomas: Greeks in America, 1913. 

AMPBELL, P. C: Chinese Coolie Emigration, 1922. 

APEK, T.: The Czechs (Bohemians) in America, 1920. 
Carlton, F. T.: Immigration, in History and Problems of Organized 

Labor, 1911. 
Chafee: Freedom of Speech, 1920. 

Chickering, Jesse: Immigration into the United States, 1848. 
Clark, Francis E.: Old Homes of New Americans, 1913. 
Clark University Addresses: Japan and Japanese American Rela- 
tions, 1912. 

Commons, John R.: Races and Immigrants in America, 1908. 

Coolidge, Mary R.: Chinese Immigration!, 1908. 

CoRwiN, The President's Control of Foreign Relations, 1917. 

Davis, J.: The Russian Immigrant, 1922. 

Davis, J. J.: Selected Immigration, 1925. 

Davis, P.: Immigration and Americanization, 1920. 

Dewees, F. p.: The Molly Maguires, 1877. 

Edwards, Richard H.: Immigration, 1909. 

Ellwood, G. a.: Sociology and Modern Social Problems, 1910. 

Ely, R. T.: Outlines of Economics. 

Fairchild, H. p.: Greek Immigration into the United States, 1911. 

Fairchild, H. p.: Immigration, 1913 and 1925. 

Fairchild, H. P.: The Melting Pot Mistake, 1926. 

Faust, A. B.: The German Element in the United States, 1909. 

FiSKE, John: The Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America 

Fiske, John: Old Virginia and her Neighbors, 1897. 

Flon, G. T.: Norwegian Immigration into the United States, 1909. 

Foerster: Italian Emigration of Our Times, 1919. 

Franklin, F. G.: The Legislative History of Naturalization in the 

United States, 1906. 
Garner: Introduction to Political Science. 
Gavit, J. P.: Americans by Choice, 1922. 

Graham, Stephen: With Poor Immigrants to America, 1914. 

Grant, M.: The Passing of the Great Race, 1921. 

Green, S. S.: The Scotch-Irish in America, 1895. 

Grose, H. B.: Aliens or Americans? 1906. 

Gulick, S. L.: The Ameiican-Japanese Problem, 1914. 

Hall, P. F.: Immigration, 1908. 

Hamilton: Current Economic Problems. 

Hanna, C. a.: The Scotch-Irish, 1902. 

Harkness, G. E.: General Aspects of Immigration. 



Harkness, G. E.: The Church and the Immigrant. 

Haskin, F. J.: The Immigrant; An Asset and a Liability, 1913. 

HiRSCH, N. D. M.: A Study of Natio-Racial Meutal Differences, 1926. 

HouRWiCH, I. A.: Immigration and Labor, 1912. 

Iyenaga, T., and Sato, K.: Japan and the California Problem. 

Jenks and Lauck: The Immigration Problem, 1922. 

Joseph, S.: Jewish Immigration to the United States, 1914. 

Kawakami, K. K.: Asia at the Door, 1914. 

Kawakami, K. K.: Japan in World Politics, 1917. 

Kee, Owyang: Chinese Immigration, 1915. 

Keller, A. G.: Colo7iization, 1908. 

Kellor, Frances A.: Straight America, 1916. 

Kroeber, a. L., and Waterman, T. T.: Source Book in Anthropology, 

KuNO, Y. S.: What Japan Wants, 1921. 

Landa: The Alien Problem and Its Remedy (English Study), 1911. 
MacLean, a.: Modern Immigration, 1925. (A study of the laws in 

the different countries.) 
MacLean, J. P.: Settlements of Scotch Highlanders in America, 1900. 
MacNair: The Chinese Abroad, 1924. 
Masaoka, Naoichi, ed.: Japan to America, 1914. 
Mayo-Smith, R.: Emigration and Immigration, 1898. 
McMaster: History of the People of the United States. 
Millis, H. a.: The Japanese Problem in the United States, 1915. 
Orth, S. p.: Our Foreigners, 1920. 
Osborne, S.: The New Japanese Peril. 
Park, R. E.: The Immigrant Press and Its Control, 1922. 
Park and Miller: Old World Traits Transplanted, 1921. 
Peters, M. C.: Jews in America, 1905. 
Phelps, Edith M.: Restriction of Immigration, 1924. 
Pitkin, W. B.: Must We Fight Japan? 

Political Science Quarterly (January, 1924), Part III, "The Immigration 

Policy of the United States." 
Proper, E. E.: Colonial Immigration Laws, 1900. 
Reuter, E. B.: The American Race Problem, 1927. 
Riis, Jacob: How the Other Half Lives, 1890. 
Riis, Jacob: The Making of An American, 1901. 
Roberts: The New Immigration, 1912. 
Roberts, K. L.: Why Europe Leaves Home, 1922. 
Rhodes, History of the United States. 
Ross, E. A.: The Old World in the New, 1914. 
Royce, G. M.: The Passing of the American. 
Safford, v.: Immigration Problems, 1925. 
Sanderson, J. P.: Republican Landmarks. 
ScHULTZ, A. P.: Race or Mongrel, 1908. 
Seager, H. R.: Principles of Economics. 
Seward, G. F.: Chinese Immigration, 1881. 
Shriver, W. p.: Immigrant Forces, 1913. 
Smith, W. G.: A Study in Canadian Immigration, 1920. 
Spargo, J.: The Jew and American Ideals, 1921. 



Steiner, E. a.: From Alien to Citizen, 1914. 

Steiner, E. a.: On the Trail of the Immigrant, 1906. 

Steiner, E. a.: The Immigrant Tide, Its Ebb and Flow, 1909. 

Steiner, E. A.: The Japanese Invasion, 1917. 

Stephenson, G. M.: A History of American Immigration, 1926. 

Stoddard, L.: The Rising Tide of Color. 

Stella, A.: Some Aspects of Italian Immigration to the United States, 

Stone, H. F.: Law and Its Administration. 
Taussig, F. W.: Principles of Economics. 
Tittoni: Modern Italy, 1922. 

Treat, P. J.: Japan and the United States, 1853-1921. 

Warne, F. J.: The Immigrant Invasion, 1913. 

Warne, F. J.: The Slav Invasion and the Mine Workers, 1904. 

Warne, F. J.: The Tide of Immigration, 1916. 

Weiss, F. F.: Seive, or Revelations of the Man Mill, 1921. 

Whelpley, J. D.: The Problem of the Immigrant, 1905. 

Willard: White Australian Policy, 1923. 

Williams, C. D.: The Gospel of Fellowship. 

Wilson, W.: History of the American People. 

Woods, R. A.: Americans in Process. 

Magazines, Newspapers, Pamphlets 

Abbott, E.: Tragedy of the Excess Quota, New Republic, Mar. 8, 1922. 

Abbott, E.: Immigration Under Percentum Limit Law, National Con- 
ference of Social Work. Proceedings, 1922. 

Alien Land Law, The — Transactions of the Commonwealth Club of 
Cahfornia, Vol. XV, No. 4, Aug., 1920. 

America's Immigration Problem — Commercial and Financial Chronicle, 
Nov. 4, 1922. 

American Press — Numerous references to its opinions are noted through- 
out this study. 

Bagley, W.: The Army Tests and the Pro-Nordic Propaganda, Ed. Rev. 
AprH, 1924. 

Bard, J.: "Why Europe Dislikes the Jew," Harper's, March, 1927. 
Barr, W. H.: "Loss of Alien Workers," Concrete, Mar., 1921. 
Barr, W. H.: "The Immigration Problem," Metal Industry, Feb., 1923. 
Beaman, M.: "The Immigration Act of 1924," Amer. Bar Assoc. Jour., 
July, 1924. 

Bercovici, K.: "The Japanese in the United States," Century, Sept., 

Bernstein, L.: "L'immigration aux Etats-Unis et le declin de I'intel- 
ligence americaine." La Grande Rev., July, 1925. 

Berry, C. S.: "The Classification by Tests of Intelligence of Ten Thou- 
sand First Grade Pupils," Jr. Ed. Research, Oct., 1922. 

Boas, F.: "The Question of Racial Purity," American Mercury, Oct., 

Boas, F.: "Fallacies of Racial Inferiority," Current History, Feb., 1927. 
Bridgeman, C. T.: "Immigration Legislation," Survey, March 11, 1922. 



Brigham, C. C: A Study of American Intelligence. 

Brinley, C. C: "Shall We Let Down the Bars?" Industrial Manage- 
ment, April, 1923. 

Brown, G. L.: "Intelligence as Related to Nationality," Jr. Ed. Re- 
search, April, 1922, pp. 324-327. 

BuELL, R. L.: "Japanese Immigration," World Peace Foundation 
Pamphlet, Vol. VII, Nos. 5-6, 1924. 

BuELL, R. L.: "The Development of Anti-Japanese Agitation in the 
United States," Political Science Quarterly, December, 1922, and 
March, 1923. 

BuELL, R. L.: "Some Legal Aspects of the Japanese Question," Amer. 
Jour. Inter. Law, Jan., 1923. 

"Business Thermometer," Outlook, May 22, 1922. 

California Commonwealth Club Transactions, pamphlets. 

Calverton, V. F. : "The Myth of Nordic Superiority," Current His- 
tory, August, 1926. 

Cannon, Cornelia J.: "Selectmg Citizens," North American Review, 
Sept., 1923. 

"Check to Immigration Has Curtailed the Labor Supply," Journal of 

Commerce, Oct. 24, 1922. 
Chetwood, J.: "Immigration — Asset or Liability?" Overland Monthly, 

Aug., 1923. 

Collins, J. H.: "Who Will Do Our Dirty Work Now?" Saturday Eve- 
ning Post, Sept. 6, 1924. 

CoLviN, S. S., and Allen, R. D.: "Mental Tests and Linguistic 
Ability," Jr. Ed. Psych., Vol. XIV, Jan., 1923, p. Iff. 

CoNDiT, K. H.: "Immigration — or Machinery," American Machinist, 
March 15, 1923. 

Congress and the Unskilled Labor Supply, pamphlet by Railway Busi- 
ness Association. 

Congressional Digest, "Reasoning Out the Immigration Problem," July- 
Aug., 1923. 

CoNKLiN, E. G: "Some Biological Aspects of Immigration," Scribner's 

Magazine, March, 1921. 
Corey, H.: "Who Will Make the Greater America?" Colliers, April 5, 


Crawford, R.: "Standing Pat on the Quota Law," Survey, March 15, 

Creel, Geo.: "Melting Pot or Dumping Ground," Colliers, Sept. 3, 

Creel, Geo.: "Close the Gates!" Collier's, May 6, 1922. 
CuRRAN, H. H.: "Fewer and Better, or None," Saturday Evening Post, 
April 26, 1924. 

CuRRAN, H. H.: "Fewer and Better," Saturday Evening Post, Nov. 15, 

Current Opinion, "Keep America White," April, 1923. 
Current Opinion, "Keep on Guarding the Gates," June, 1923. 
Current Opinion, "Slap at Japan," June, 1924. 
Current Opinion, "What Ails Japan?" July, 1924. 
"Cutting Off Our Man-Power," Nation, Oct. 18, 1922. 



Davis, J. J.: "How the Immigration Laws Are Now Working," Ameri- 
can Review of Reviews, May, 1922. 

Davis, J. J.: "Immigration and Naturalization," Outlook, June 7, 1922. 

Davis, J. J.: "Immigration Check Proves Drastic," Journal of Com- 
merce, Dec. 12, 1922, and Dec. 16, 1922. 

Davis, J. J.: "Jail or a Passport," Saturday Evening Post, Dec. 1, 1923. 

Davis, J. J.: Selective Immigration, The Forum, Sept., 1923. 

Dickinson, E. D.: "The Meaning of Nationality in the Recent Immi- 
gration Acts," Amer. Journal of lyiternational Law, Vol. 19 (1925), 
pp. 344-7. 

Edgerton, E.: "Immigration and Industry," Forum, Sept., 1923. 
Ellis, W. T.: "Americans on Guard," Saturday Evening Post, Aug. 
25, 1923. 

Emery, J. A.: "A Constructive Immigration Policy," American In- 
dustries, Jan., 1923. 

Facts in the Case, A Statement Based upon the Report of the State 
Board of Control, pamphlet by Japanese Association of America. 

Fairchild: "The Immigration Law of 1924," Quarterly Jouriml of 
Economics, Aug., 1924. 

Fairchild, H. P.: "The Literacy Test and Its Making," Quarterly 
Journal of Economics, Vol. 31. 

Feingold, G. a.: "Intelligence of the First Generation of Immigrant 
Groups," Jr. Ed. Psych., Vol. XV, No. 2, Feb., 1924, p. 65fT. 

Fbnwick, C. G.: "The Japanese Problem," Amer. Journal of Inter- 
national Law, Vol. 18, p. 523 (1924). 

Filene, E. a.: "Immigration, Progress and Prosperity," Saturday 
Evening Post, July 28, 1923. 

Ford, H. J.: "The Anglo-Saxon Myth," American Mercury, Sept. 1924. 

Foreign Language Information Service, Publishers of Editorial Digest 
of the Foreign Language Press in America and The Interpreter. 

Frank, G.: " Sensible Immigration Policy," Century Magazine, May, 

Frazer, Elizabeth: "Our Foreign Farmers," Saturday Evening Post, 
Oct. 15, 1923. 

Garis, Roy L.: "The Immigration Problem — A Practical American 

Solution," Scribner's Magazine, Sept., 1922. 
Garis Roy L.: "How the New Immigration Law Works," Scribner's 

Magazine, Aug., 1924. 
Garis, Roy L.: "Lest Immigration Restriction Fail," Saturday Evening 

Post, Oct. 10, 1925. 
Garis, Roy L.: "Our Immigration Policy," North American Review, 

Sept., 1924. 

Garis Roy L.: "The Necessity of Excluding Inferior Stock," Current 

History, Aug. 1926. 
Garis, Roy L.: "It Is Time to Clean House," Saturday Evening Post, 

Sept. 25, 1926. 

Garrett, Caret: "Citizens Thereof," Saturday Evening Post, July 19, 

Garrett, Caret: "Lo, The Native American!" Saturday Evening Post, 
Aug. 9, 1924. 



GiLLMAN, J. M.: "Statistics and the Immigration Problem," Amer. 

Journal of Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 1, July, 1924, p. 29ff. 
GoDMAN, E.: "Coming Lack of Workers," Nation, May 5, 1923. 
GoMPERS, S.: "Immigration? — Utilize First What We Have," Ameri- 

can Federationist, June, 1923. 
GoMPERS, S.: "America Wants no Wide-Open Immigration," Ameri- 
can Federationist, Aug., 1923. 
Graham, Stephen: "Both Sides of the Closed Door," American Legion 

Weekly, Nov. 17, 1922. 
Grant, E. E.: "Scum From the Melting Pot," Amer. Journal of 

Sociology, Vol. 30 (1924-25), pp. 641-651. 
Grant, M.: "Racial Transformation of America," North American 

Review, March, 1924. 
Greenwood, E.: "Bootlegging in Humanity," Saturday Evening Post, 

Sept. 8, 1923. 

GuLiCK, S. L.: Permanent Immigration Policy, National Committee 
for Constructive Immigration Legislation, New York, 1922. 

Gutowski, S. a.: "Through the Mill of Americanization," Scribner's, 
July, 1925. 

Hall, P. F.: "Present and Future of Inunigration," North American 

Review, May, 1921. 
Hays, W. M.: "Immigration and Eugenics," Review of Reviews, April, 


Herskovits, M. J.: "Brains and the Immigrant," Nation, Feb. 11, 

Hexter, M., and Myerson, A.: A Study in Probable Error, Mental 
Hygiene, Vol. 8, Jan., 1924. 

Hill, C. D.: "Citizenship of Married Women," Amer. Journal of In- 
ternational Law, Vol. 18 (1924), pp. 720-736. 

HiNMAN, G. W., Jr.: "National Origins, Our New Immigration For- 
mula," Review of Reviews, Sept., 1924. 

Holmes, F. L.: "Menace of the Open Door," Overland Monthly, Feb., 

Holmes, S. J.: "Immigration and the Future American," The Inde- 
pendent, March 17, 1923. 

Horwill, H. W.: "America's New Immigration Policy," Contemporary 
Review, April, 1922. 

"How Immigration Affects Business," Industrial Digest, Feb., 1923. 

Howe, F. C: The Westward Tide of Peoples, Scribner's Magazine, 
Sept., 1922. 

Hoyem, O.: "Immigration and America's Safety," American Federa- 
tionist, Nov., 1922. 

Husband, W. W.: "How Let in the Men We Need?" Nation's Bu^ness, 
Jan., 1923. 

Husband, W. W.: "How Restricted Immigration Works Out," Current 

History Magazine, Jan., 1922. 
Husband, W. W.: "Immigration Under the Percentum Limit Act," 

Monthly Labor Review, Aug., 1922. 
"Immigration, A Look Ahead," by Edith T. Bremer and G. M. Fisher, 

The Survey, May 15, 1924. 



Immigration and Population, Transactions of the Commonwealth Club 

of California, Vol. XVII, Nov. 8, 1922. 
"Immigration Law Hurts Industry," Journal of Commerce, Oct. 24, 


"Immigration Laws are Vital Issue," Journal of Commerce, Dec. 6, 1922. 
"Immigration Question, The Pro and Con," Manufacturers' Record, 
Nov. 23, 1922. 

"Immigration Restrictions," American Review of Reviews, Nov., 1922. 

Immigration Restriction League Pamphlets, letters, etc. 

"Increased Immigration Needed," Industrial Digest, Feb., 1923. 

Independent, "Letting Down the Bars," April 28, 1923. 

Independent, "Desirable Immigration," Aug. 4, 1923. 

Interpreter, The — monthly pamphlet published by the Foreign Lan- 
guage Information Service. 

Irish, J. P.: A Reply to Hon. John S. Chambers, pamphlet. 

Iron Age, "Strong Support for Selective Immigration," Jan. 11, 1923. 

Iron Trade Review, "Disregard Need for Immigrants," Jan. 11, 1923. 

Japanese Farmers in California, An address given at the 52nd Con- 
vention of California Fruit Growers and Farmers held Nov. 10 to 
16, 1919. 

Japanese in California, Comments in the California Press, pamphlet. 

Jennings, H. S.: "Undesirable Aliens," Survey, Dec. 15, 1923. 

Jessup, p. C: "Some Phases of the Administrative and Judicial In- 
terpretation of the Immigration Act of 1924," Yale Law Jour., 
April, 1926. 

Kawakami, K. K.: "How Japanese Exclusion Will Work," Outlook, 
June 25, 1924. 

Kawakami, K. K.: "America's Challenge to Asia," Asia, Aug., 1924. 
Kellor, Frances: "Future Immigration," North American Review, 
July, 1921. 

Kellor, Frances: "Humanizing the Immigration Law," North Ameri- 
can Review, June, 1923. 

KiLBOURNE, C. E.: "The Logic of the Barred Gate," American Legion 
Weekly, Oct. 20, 1922. 

KiRKPATRicK, C: "Selective Immigration," Journal of Social Forces, 
March, 1925. 

Labor Review, Monthly, each issue has important official statistics and 

articles on the subject of immigration. 
Literary Digest, "Opening Guns in the Immigration Fight," May 5, 


Literary Digest, "Machinery to Replace Immigrants," May 5, 1923. 
Literary Digest, "What Ten Years Did to Us," June 23, 1923. 
Literary Digest, "The Terrors of Ellis Island," July 7, 1923. 
Literary Digest, "Uncle Sam's Housekeeping at Ellis Island," Aug. 4, 

Literary Digest, "Ellis Island Stirring up the British," Sept. 1, 1923. 
Literary Digest, "Ellis Island A Red Rag to John Bull," Sept. 22, 

Literary Digest, "To Cut Our Immigration in Half," Feb. 2, 1924. 
Literary Digest, "Who Are Undesirable Aliens?" Feb. 23, 1924. 



Literary Digest, "Our New 'Nordic' Immigration Policy," May 10, 1924. 
Literary Digest, ''Japanese Rage at Exclusion," May 31, 1924. 
Literary Digest, "End of the Melting Pot Theory," June 7, 1924. 
Literary Digest, "Japanese Wrath at Exclusion," June 14, 1924. 
Loterary Digest, "Nordics and Other People," June 14, 1924. 
Literary Digest, "The Japanese Ban on Americans," June 21, 1924. 
Literary Digest, "Why Japan Would Retaliate," July 19, 1924. 
Literary Digest, "Squelching a Japanese War Scare," Jan. 3, 1925. 
Literary Digest, "New Immigration Quotas," Jan. 22, 1927. 
Marcosson, I. F.: "Checking the Alien Tide," Saturday Evening Post, 
May 5, 1923. 

Marshall, R. C: "Will Restrictive Immigration Throttle Industry?" 
Constructor, Nov., 1922, and also in Magazine of Wall Street, Sept. 
30, 1922. 

McIntosh, K. C: "Reply to Frederic C. Howe," Scribner's Magazine, 
Vol. 73: 216-22. 

Mead, Margaret: "The Methodology of Racial Testing," Amer. Jour. 

of Sociology, Vol. 31 (1925-6), pp. 657-667. 
MoFFETT, L. W.: "Keen Interest in Coming of Immigrants," Iron Age, 

May 31, 1923. 

MuRDOCK, K.: "Race Differences in New York City," School and So- 
ciety, XI, 1920. 

National Committee for Constructive Immigration Legislation, pamph- 
lets, etc. 

National Liberal Immigration League, pamphlets, etc. 
National Origins: 

Bibliography prepared by the Library of Congress 


1. "America invites British racial control"; scrutiny of the new immi- 

gration law reveals a "joker." Current Opinion, Nov., 1924, v. 
77 : 623-624. AP2.C95, v, 77. 

2. "The American bid for British stock." Progressive, Jan. 15, 1925, 

V. 8:200-201. Reprinted from Observer, London. 

3. Bacon, Robert L.: "Speech in the House," Apr. 8, 1924. Congres- 

sional Record, 68th Cong., 1st sess., v. 65, pt. 6; 5901-5907. 
J11.R5, V. 65, pt. 6. Includes discussion of "national origins" 

4. Beaman, Middleton: "The Immigration Act of 1924." Amer. Bar 

Asso. Jour., July, 1924, v. 10:490-492. Economic World, July 19, 
1924, n. s. V. 28:76-79. HC8011.M3, n. s. v. 28, National origins: 
p. 490. 

5. Burr, Clinton S.: America's Race Heritage; an account of the 

diffusion of ancestral stocks in the United States during three 
centuries of national expansion and a discussion of its significance. 
New York, The National Historical Society, 1922. 337 p. Bibli- 
ography: p. 325-327. E184A1B9. 

6. "Choosing a quota basis " American Review of Reviews, May, 1924, 

V. 69:455-456. AP2.R4, v. 69. 



7. Dickinson, Edwin Db Witt: "The Meaning of Nationality in the 

Recent Immigration Acts," in American Journal oj International 
Law, Concord, N. H, 1925. v. 19, p. 344-347. JX1A6, v. 19. 

8. DouGL-ASS, John J.: Remarks in the House, May 28, 1926, on 

"National Origins Method." Congressional Record, 69th Cong., 
1st sess. V. 67, no. 141 (cmjent file) : 10281-10283. 

9. Fairchild, Henry P.: Immigration, a World Movement and Its 

American Significance. Rev. ed. New York, The Macmillan 
Co., 1925. 520 p. Bibliography: p. 501-511. "National Origins," 
p. 460-461. JV6465.F3 1925. 

10. r.\iRCHiLD, Henry P.: "The Immigration Law of 1924," Quarterly 

Journal of Economics. Aug. 1924, v. 38:653-665. "National Ori- 
gins," p. 660-661. HB1.Q3, v. 38. 

11. Fairchild, Henry P.: The Melting-Pot Mistake. Boston, Little, 

Brown and Co., 1926. 226 p. JV6465.F35. 

12. G.ARis, Roy L.: "How the New Immigration Law Works," Scribner's 

Magazine, Aug., 1924, v. 76:183-188. "National Origin Scheme," 
p. 187. AP2.S4, V. 76. 

13. Grant, Madison : "America for the Americans," Forum,, Sept., 1925, 

V. 74:346-355. "National Origins Feature," p. 355. AP2.F8, 
V. 74. 

14. HiNMAN, George W., Jr.: "National Origins; Our New Immigration 

Formula," American Review of Reviews, Sept., 1924, v. 70:304- 
309. AP2.R4, V. 70. 

15. "Immigration into the United States — II. The Restriction Policy," 

Economist (London), Apr. 11, 1925, v. 100:697-699. "Quota 
Immigrants," p. 698. HG11.E2, v. 100. 

16. McSwEENEY, Edw.\rd F. : "Facts and a Fraud," Columbia, v. 4, Oct., 

1925: 5. "Further Exposure of the 1924 Immigration Law." 

17. McSwEENEY, Edw.\rd F.: "Nativism Gone Mad," Progressive, Feb. 

Aug. 15, Sept. 1, 1925, v. 8: 543-545; 559-561. 

18. McSwEENEY, Edwaed F. : "Making America Nordic," Columbia, v. 4, 

Aug., 1925:9-10. 

19. McS\vEENEY, Edw.ard F. : "Nativism Gone Mad," Progressive, Feb. 

1, 15, 1925, V. 8:227-231; 255-257. 

20. Maier, David: "The Immigration Problem;" a supplementary report 

of the Political Committee of the Steuben Society of America, 
Progressive, May 15, 1926. v. 9:348-349. 

21. Maier, D.wid: Same. In Congressional Record, 69th Congress, 1st 

session, v. 67, no. 156 (current file): 11413-11414. Introduced into 
the Record by Senator Copeland. 

22. "National Manufacturers' Association, Immigration Committee," 

Report, 1925, Journal of Commerce, June 8, 1925, p. 22. Op- 
posed to the further reduction beginning Julv 1, 1927. 

23. "National Origins," Outlook, May 5, 1926, v. 143: 10. AP2.08, v. 143. 

24. "Our New 'Nordic' Immigration Policy." Literary Digest, v. 81, 

May 10, 1924: 12-13. AP2.L58, v. 81. 

25. Parker, A. W.\rren : "The Quota Provisions of the Immigration Act 

of 1924," American Journal of International Law, Oct., 1924, v. 
18:737-754. The "national origins" plan, p. 740. JX1.A6, v. 18. 

26. Reed, David A.: "America of the Melting Pot Comes to End." 

Effects of new immigration legislation described. New York 
Times, Apr. 17, 1924, sec. 9:3. Includes national origins method. 

27. Reed, David A.: Remarks in the Senate, Apr. 9, 1924, explaining "na- 

tional origins" plan. Congressional Record, 68th Cong., 1st sess., 
v. 65, pt. 6:5942-5945. J11.R5, v. 65, pt. 6. 



28. "Restriction of Immigration," Law and Labor, Apr., 1924, v 6:93. 

HD7608.L3, v. 6. 

29. Saguntinus, E.: "The New Discrimination Act," Columbia, v. 4, 

May, 1925 : 5-6, 45, 50. Opposed to "national origins" provision. 

30. Saguntinus, E.: "A New Constitutional Issue." Columbia, v. 4, 

Dec, 1925 : 15-16. On the "national origins" clause. 

31. ScHRADER, Frederick F. : "Mr. Vaile and the Immigration Problem," 

Progressive, Feb. 1, 1926, v. 9: 174-176. 

32. Stephenson, George M. A History of American Immigration, 1920- 

1924. Boston, New York, Ginn and Co. [1926.] 316 p. "Select 
bibhography": p. 283-302. National origins provisions: p. 189-191. 

33. Trevor, John B. An Analysis oj the American Immigration Act of 

1924- New York City, Greenwich, Conn., Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace, division of intercourse and education 
[1924], 76 p. (International conciliation, pub. monthly by the 
Carnegie endowment for international peace. . , Sept., 1924, 
no. 202). JX1907.A8 no. 202. Numerical limitations: p. 14-19. 
Appendix "B." A study of the population of the United States: 
p. 54-63. 

34. Trevor, John B.: "Immigration problem; Prehminary study of immi- 

gration problem," Congressional Record, 68th Cong., 1st sess., 
V. 65, pt. 6: 5469-5471 ; 5906-5907. J11.R5, v. 65, pt. 6. 

35. Trevor, John B.: "Immigration quotas," an explanation of their 

method and of their practical effects. New York Times, Aug. 14, 

1925, p. 12. See also article by E. F. McSweeney, Aug. 7, 1925. 

36. U. S. Bureau of Immigration. Annual report. 1925. Washington, 

Govt. Print. Off., 1925. 181 p. Harry E. Hull, commissioner. 
Legislative changes recommended: 13th relates to sec. 11: p. 29. 
JV6414.A3 1925. 

37. U. S. Bureau of Immigration. Coiigress. Debate on the Johnson 

immigration bill (H. R. 7995) is to be found in the Congressional 
Record, 68th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 65, on the following pages: 

H. R. 7995. — To limit the immigration of aliens into the United 
States. Introduced by Mr. Johnson and referred to the Committee 
on Immigration and Naturalization, p. 4395. Reported with 
amendments (H. Rept. 350), p. 4912; minority views submitted 
(H. Rept. 350, pt. 2), p. 5117; debated, 3424, 5577, 5588, 5640- 
5707, 5833-5907, 5908-5936, 6110-6150, 6153-6174, 6225-6274, 6476, 
8639. — Amended and passed House, 6258. — Amended and passed 
Senate (S. 2576), 6644-6649.— Conference report submitted in House 
(H. Rept. 688), 8218.— Debated, 8218-8249, 8250, 8279, 8639.— Re- 
committed to comm. of conference, 8249. — Conference report (H. 
Rept. 716), 8627.— Debated, 8626-8652, 8655.— Agreed to, 8652.— 
Conf. report. Senate. 8568, 8575.— Agreed to, 8589.— Examined and 
signed, 8511, 8738. 8958.— Approved, 10068. 

Senate, 2576. The bill was introduced into the Senate, p. 2829; 
reported, 5055; debated, p. 5393, 5409, 5459-5477, 5553, 5565, 5737, 
5802, 5823, 5941, 6302, 6354, 6366, 6373, 6457, 6533, 6608-6644. 

Many of the debates include discussions of the national origins 

38. U. S. Bureau of Immigration. House. Committee on immigration 

and naturalization. Restriction of immigration. Hearings . . . of Representatives, Sixty-eighth Congress, first session, on 
H. R. 5, H. R. 101, H. R. 561, H. R. 6540. Washington, Govern- 
ment printing office. 1925. 1433, 1439-1462 p. JV6505.19. 



39. U. S. Bureau of Immigration. Restriction of immigration . . . Re- 

port. (To accompany H. R. 7995.) [Washington, Government 
printing office, 1924] 41 p. (68th Cong. 1st sess. House. Rept. 
350.) See especially p. 12-17, 26-40. JV6505.1924b. 

40. U. S. Bureau oj Immigration. Senate. C ommittee on immigration. 

Selective immigration legislation. Hearings on S. 2365 and S. 2576, 
a bill to limit the immigration of aliens into the United States, 
and to provide a system of selection in connection therewith, and 
for other purposes. Feb. 13-14, 20-21, Mar. 8, 13-14, Apr. 7-8, 1924. 
Washington, Government printing office, 1924. 314 p. (68th Cong. 
1st sess.) JV6505.1924d. 

41. U. S. Bureau oj Immigration. Conference committees, 1923-1924- 

Immigration of aliens . . . Conference report. (To accompany 
H. R. 7995) [Washington, Government printing office, 1924] 22 p. 
(68th Cong., 1st sess. House. Rept. 688.) JV6505.192c. 

42. U. S. Congress. Conference committees, 1923-1924- Immigration of 

aliens into the United States. . . Conference report. (To accom- 
pany H. R. 7995). 20 p. (68th Cong., 1st sess.; House. Rept. 
716). JV6505.1924f. 

43. U. S. Congress. Dept. of Labor. Letter from the Secretary of Labor 

to the chairman of the Committee on Immigration and Naturaliza- 
tion, House of Representatives, transmitting suggestions in con- 
nection with impending immigration legislation. Washington, 
Government printing office, 1924. 20 p. Nationality and per- 
centare limitation: p. 5. JV6491. 1923d. 

44. U. S. Congress. Dept. of State. Letter from the Secretary of State 

[Charles E. Hughes] relating to the selective immigration act. 
Apr. 8, 1924. Congressional Record, 68th Cong., 1st sess. v. 65, 
pt. 6:5810-5813. Includes discussions on Sec. 11. Jll. R5, v. 65, 
pt. 6. 

45. Vaile, Willi.^m N.: "Germany and the immigration quota." Ex- 

tension of remarks in the House, Dec. 16, 1925. Congressional 
Record, 69th Congress 1st session, v. 67, No. 12 (current file) : 

"The national origins plan is fair to all; it avoids completely 
all racial discrimination, and it will preserve the blood of the 
United States in its present proportions." 

46. W.ARD, R. de C. : "New Immigration Law and its Operation." Scien- 

tific Monthly, July, 1925, v. 21:45-53. "National Origins:" p. 46 
(footnote), 53. Q1.S817, v. 21. 

47. Ward, R. de C: "Our new immigration Policy," Foreign Affairs, 

Sept. 15, 1924, v. 3: 39-111. "Racial Origin Provision:" p. 107-108. 
D410.F6, v. 3. 

48. Wasson, R. Gordon: "New American Immigration Policy," Spec- 

tator, Mar. 28, 1925, v. 134:491-492. "National origins:" p. 492. 
AP4.S7, V. 134. 

"New Immigration Law, An Epocli in American Industry, "Industrial 
Management, May, 1924. 

New Republic, "No Immigrant Flood," Dec. 13, 1922. 

New Republic, "Uses of Labor Shortage," Feb. 14, 1923. 

Neio Republic, "Immigration and Labor Shortage," Aug. 1, 1923. 

New York Times, the Editorials and Articles therein. 

"No Scarcity of Labor Would Justify Encouraging Increased Immigra- 
tion," Manufacturers' Record, Nov. 9, 1922. 



Outlook, "Labor Shortage and Immigration," Feb. 7, 1923. 
Outlook, "Stocking America with People," May 23, 1923. 
Outlook, "Choose Citizens, Not Let Them in," Dec. 12, 1923. 
Parker, A. W.: "The Quota Provisions of the Immigration Act of 

1924," Amer. Journal of International Law, Vol. 18 (1924), pp. 


Parker, A. W.: "The Ineligible to Citizenship Provision of the Act 
of 1924," Amer. Journal of International Law, Vol. XIX (1925), 
p. 30 ff. 

Pinter, R., and Keller, R.: "Intelligence Tests of Foreign Children," 

Jr. Ed. Psych., Aug., 1922, p. 214 ff. 
"Possibilities in American Immigration Policy," World's Work, Nov., 


"Proposed Change in Immigration Law." Merchants Suggest Control 
in Europe, Journal of Commerce, Mar. 10, 1922. 

Ravage, M. E.: "America Goes A-Marketing," Saturday Evening Post, 
Sept. 15, 1923. 

"Regulation of Immigration into the United States," International 

Labor Review, Jan., 1922. 
Review of Reviews, "Italian Immigration," July, 1924. 
Roberts, K. L. : "Shutting the Gates," Saturday Evening Post, Jan. 28, 


Roberts, K. L.: "Slow Poison," Saturday Evening Post, Feb. 2, 1924. 
Roberts, K. L.: "East is East," Saturday Evening Post, Feb. 23, 1924. 
Roberts, K. L.: "And West is West," Saturday Evening Post, March 
15, 1924. 

Roosevelt, T.: "America and Japan," pamphlet, reprinted from The 

New York Times. 
RosENQUiST, C. M.: "Measuring Americanism," Southwestern Pol. and 

Soc. Sci. Quar., Mar., 1926. 
Ross, E. A.: "Menace of the Open Door," Overland Monthly, Feb., 


RussBLL, C. E.: "The Nordic Goes A-Saber-Rattling," Century, April, 

Saturday Evening Post editorials: November 18, 1922; March 29, 

1924; June 28, 1924. 
ScHREiNER, G. A.: "This Being an Immigrant," American Mercury, 

Dec, 1924. 

Seager, H. R.: "Economist's Support of Restricted Immigration," 

Management Engineering, Jan., 1923. 
"Shall We Register Our Aliens?" Pro, H. P. Fairchild; Con, 0. G. 

Villard, Forum, March, 1926. 
"Shall We Turn Them Back to Their Persecutors?" Outlook, Dec. 27, 


"Smith, A.: "Scarcity of Common Labor in Industry," Iron Age, Sept. 
21, 1922. 

Speek, p. a.: "The Meaning of Nationality and Americanization," 

Amer. Jour. Sociol., Sept., 1926. 
Speranza, G.: "The Immigration Peril," Series of Articles in The 

World's Work, Vol. 47. 



Statistics Relative to Japanese Immigration and The Japanese in 
California, pamphlet by the Japanese Association of America. 

Stephenson, G. M.: "Background of the Beginnings of Swedish 
Immigration, 1850-1875," Am. Hist. Rev., July, 1926. _ 

Stoddard, Lothrop: Series of articles in Saturday Evening Post, be- 
ginning with issue of March 22, 1924. 

Strother, F.: 'Immigration Peril," World's Work, Oct., 1923. 

Sweeney, A.: ''Mental Tests for Immigrants," North American Re- 
view, May, 1922. 

Thayer, W. R.: "Throwing Away Our Birthright," North American 

Review, Feb., 1922. 
"Three Per Cent Immigration Biologically r'onsidered," World's Work, 

Oct., 1922. 

Treadway: "Keeping the Alien out of America," Current History 

Magazine, Sept., 1924. 
Trevor, John B.: "An Analysis of the American Immigration Act 

of 1924," International Conciliation Pamphlet, No. 202, Sept., 


"Unemployment and Immigration," World's Work, Dec, 1922. 

Wallace, J. B.: "Waving the Yellow Flag in California," pamphlet, 
reprint from The Dearborn Independent. 

"Wanted — An Immigration Policy," New Republic, Dec. 26, 1914. 

Ward, Robert DeC: "Immigration and the Three Per Cent Restrictive 
Law," Journal of Heredity, Aug.-Sept., 1921. 

Ward, Robert DeC: "Some Thoughts on Immigration Restriction," 
Scientific Monthly, Oct., 1922. 

Ward, Robert DeC: "Our Immigration Problem Today," Scientific 
Monthly, Dec, 1922. 

Ward, Robert DeC: "Our New Immigration Policy," Foreign Af- 
fairs, Sept., 1924. 

Ward, Robert DeC: "Recent Developments in Immigration," Scientific 
Monthly for Dec, 1923. 

Ward, Robert DeC: "Higher Mental and Physical Standards for Im- 
migrants, Scientific Monthly, Nov., 1924. 

Wheelwright, W. D.: "Disapproving Anti-Japanese Agitation," 
pamphlet, reprinted from the Oregon Voter, Portland, Feb. 14, 

WooLSTON, H.: "Wanted, An American Immigration Policy," Jour, of 

Social Forces, Sept., 1924, Vol. II, pp. 666-670. 
"Would Admit Aliens Needed in Industries," Wall Street Journal, 

Dec 19, 1922. 

Young, J. C: "Breaking into the United States," World's Work, 
Nov., 1924. 

Young, K.: "Mental Differences in Certain Immigrant Groups," Uni- 
versity of Oregon Publication, Vol. I, July, 1922, No. XL 


Adams, John, 24 

Administration, powers of officials, 
88, 92, 96, 99, 100, 101, 102, 107- 
108, 109, 112, 115, 118, 120, 
134, 137, 150, 300, 302-303 

Alien and Sedition Laws, 32 

Alien contract labor law, 90-96, 105, 

Alien, definition of, 125 

Anarchists, 102, 104, 108, 126, 138- 
140, 219-220 

Antin, Mary, note on, 26 

Archer, W. S, 30 

Army tests, 229-236; criticisms of, 

Assimilation, 14, 20, 25, 29, 31, 34, 
45, 119, 122, 211, 213, 217, 220, 
222, 223-224, 228-229, 235-236, 237, 
248, 251-252, 253, 269-270, 290-291, 
317, 318-319, 320, 352-353 

Austro-Hungarian immigration, 212- 

Bagley, W., 236 

Balance sheet, 52-54 

Barred zone, 38-39, 128-130, 306-307 

Bayard, J. A., 30 

Bernard, L. L., 238 

Boas, F., 227, 239 

Bonds for immigrants, 16, 35, 36, 

74, 75, 79, 100, 113 
Brigham, C. C, 236 
Buchanan, James, 30, 34 
Burden of proof, 93, 199, 300 
Burlingame treaty, 288-289, 292 
Burnett, Representative, 123, 124 

Catholics, colonial opposition to, 17; 
opposition of the Nativistic party 
to, 48 

Causes of English emigration to 

American colonies, 3-4 
Causes of modern immigration, 117 
Causes of opposition, colonial, 19; 

after 1830, 44-46, 52-56 
Chambers, J. S., 317 

Characteristics of southern colo- 
nists, 4; of northern colonists, 4 

Chew Heong v. U. S, 296 

Chinese, early opposition to, 286- 
288; assimilation of, 290; con- 
gressional investigation concern- 
ing, 290-292; Act of March 3, 
1875, 292 ; treaty of 1880, 292-294 ; 
exclusion of, 294-296; treaty of 
1888, 296-298; act of 1888, 298- 
299; exclusion cases, 299, 300; 
Act of 1892, 299-300; treaty of 
1894, 302; Act of 1902, 303-304; 
statistics, 305, 309 

Chy Lung v. J. H. Freeman et al., 

Citizenship of foreign women, 135, 

140, 176-177 
City of New York v. Milne, 68-71, 


Clay, Henry, 47-49 
Cleveland, G., 115, 124, 298, 299, 

Colonial arguments against immi- 
gration, 19 

Colonial immigration, English, 3; 
southern, 4; northern, 4; causes 
of, 3-4 ; effects of, 18, 20-21 

Colonial immigrants, 5 

Colonial legislation, 13-17 

Colonial opposition, 6, 9, 13-17, 20- 

Colonies, racial characteristics of, 3, 
19, 20 

Commissioner-General of Immigra- 
tion, 102, 107, 109, 172, 173, 174, 
176, 177, 178, 181, 184, 196, 197, 
199, 276, 327 

Commissioner of Immigration, 85 

Commission on immigration, 113; 
recommendations of, 117-122 

Commons, J. R., 5, 8, 19, 212, 213, 
214, 216 

Communism, 221-222 

Conin-essional debates of 1790 and 
1798, 28-30 



Constitutional cl.iuses relative to 

immigration. 27, 59 
Consular reports, 40-42, 44 
Continental Congress, resolution of, 


Contiguous territorv. immigration 

from. S9. 97. 104^ 114. 132. 146. 

152. 15S. 160-161, 167 
Contract labor. 90-92. 95. 104-105. 

111. lis. 125. 132-133 
Coolidiie. C. 169-170. 175, 1S4, 200, 

335-336, 340. 354 
Coolie trade, legislation against, S6, 


Craw-ford. W. H.. 34 
Criminals. 12. 13. 15. IS. 36-44. 51- 
56, S7-SS, US, 119 

Davis, J. J., 174. 175. 1S4. 270 

Davis, John, 37-3S 

DeMotte, M., 319 

Deportation, first case of. 13: right 

of. 32. 39. 51-52. SS-89. 92. 93. 

97, 107. 112, 114, 115, lis. 120, 

134-136. 140. 194. 199. 300. 313 
Dept. of Labor. 115 
Dillindiam, W. P.. 123. 217-21S 
Dillingham-Bumett Bill. 123 
Discrimination, 248. 252. 263-265. 

268-270. 272. 304. 320. 349-351. 352 
Distribution of Immigmnts, S5. 113. 

121. 222-223 
Dutch colonists, 4 

Ekiu v. United States, 96 
Elections, effect of imniigratioii in, 

34, 45-46, 47-50 
English-speaking immigrants, 168 
r.verett, A. H.. 44-45 
Examination of immigrants. SS. 96, 


Excess quotas, 148. 150. 161. 162 

Excluded classes. S6. 87. SS. 89. 95. 
104. 111. 114. 115. lis. 125-126. 
127. 135. 199 

Exclusion laws. 12S-130. 294-296. 
298-299. 303-304, 306-307, 320. 330, 
340-341. 353 

Exempt classes, under contract la- 
bor, 90-91, 96, 105, 132-133: un- 
der quota limitations. 143. 145 

Fairchild, H. P., 3, 14, 19, 35. 45, 
84, 239 

Families of immigrants, 173-176 

Fish, Hamilton, 42-43 

Ford committee, report of, 1889, 94 

Franklin, Benjamin, 10. 25 

Frelinghuvsen. T., 47-49 

Foreign born in U. S., 220, 222-223 

Garner, J. W., 252 

Gavit, J. P., 227-228 

Gegiow V. Uhl, 126 

Gentlemen's agreement, 312. 322, 

324-325, 326. 327-329. 335 
German immigrants. 7-10 
Gibbons v. Osden. 61-62. 69, 72 
Gillam, J. M., 248-249 
Gottlieb case, 161. 179-181 
Grant, U. S., 289-290 
Groves et al. v. Slaughter, 71-72 

Hall. P. F.. 102 

Hanihara. 332. 333. 335 

Harding. W. G.. 149. 1S4 

Hartford Convention. 33-34 

Haskin. F. J.. 224-225 

Hawaii, 303. 310-311. 322 

Head tax, 15, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 87- 

88. 101. 104. 109. 110. 122, 125 
Henderson et al. v. Mayor of New 

York et al.. 79 
Hexter. M.. 236 
Hmdus. 307 
Hoover. H.. 275 
Hughes. C. E.. 332-333. 352. 354 
Huguenots. 10-11 

Illiteracv. 102. 103. 115. 122. 123- 
124; Act of 1917. 130-132 _ 

Immigrants, definition of. 171 

Immigration Commission. 113; rec- 
ommendations of, 117-122 

Indentured servants, S-9. 11-13 _ 

Inspection of immigrants. 15. 35. 36. 
41-42. 44. 69. 74. 75. 79. 80-81. 88. 
100. 133-134 

Iredell, Justice. 61 

Italian immigration, 209-212 

Jackson, Andrew, 34 

Japanese, statistics, 309-311. 315: 
Gentlemen's agreement, 312, 322, 
324-325, 326. 327-329. 335; picture 
brides. 312. 326: Kankodan brides. 
312. 329; opposition to. 314; Cal- 
ifornia's attitude. 315-321; land 
ownership, 319-320. 325-326 :_presi- 
dential proclamation of 1907. 321- 
322: treaty of 1894. 322-323: 
treaty of 1911, 323-324; House 
Report. 327-331; surreptitious en- 
tries, 329; history of provision in 



Act of 1924, 332-341; Hanihara, 
332, 333-335; protests in Japan, 
341-343; opinions in U. S., 343- 
349, 351-352; fear of discrimina- 
tion, 349-350 
Jefferson, Thomas, 25-26 
Jennings, H. S., 249 
Jewish immigration, 214-215 
Johnson, A., Foreword, 201, 274-275, 
276, 336 

Johnson bill, history of, 170-171, 200- 

201 ; provisions in, 171 
Johnson, Henry, 31, 43 
Johnson, Hiram, 278-279 

Kankodan brides, 312, 329 
Kidnaped immigrants, 11-12 
Kirkpatrick, C, 237-238, 249-250 
Know-nothing party, 50 

Labor, competition of, 45, 103, 111, 
119, 124, 219, 225, 290-291, 315, 
329; supply of, 35, 121-122 

Landownership bv Japanese, 315- 
316. 319-320, 325-326 

Latitude and longitude clause (see 
barred zone) 

Laughlin, H. H, 55-56, 239-248, 
criticisms of, 248-251 

Legislation, colonial, 13-17 

Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 

License cases, 73 

Li Sing V. United States, 102 

List, F., recommendations of, 41- 

42, 190 
Literacy (see illiteracy) 
Lowell, A. L., 252 

Madison, James, 28-29, 59-60 
Manifests, 14 16, 35, 36, 69, 77, 79, 

83, 99-100, 106, 112, 114, 134 
Marshall, Chief Justice, 62 
Martin, Luther, 60 
May and Pollock, 246 
Mayo-Smith, R. (see Smith, R. 

Mayo, W. J., 246-247 
McClatchy, V. S.. 312, 313, 318-319 
McMaster, J. B., 20, 33, 45, 40 
McReynolds, S. D., 220-221 
Molly Maguire, 50 
Moral turpitude, 111, 135 

Nationality, definition of, 142-143 
National origins, 183, 270-285 
Native Americanism, 47-49 

Naturalization, 27-32, 47, 50, 121, 

Net immigration, 162, 165 
New immigration, 150-151, 155, 158, 

160, 167, 204-207, 216, 217, 231- 

235, 239, 242, 244 
Newspapers, foreign, 221 
Non-assimilation (see assimilation) 
Non-immigrants, 171-172 
Non-quota immigrants, 152, 158, 


Norris v. City of Boston, 63-67, 74- 

Ochs, A., 265, 268 

Old immigration, 150-151, 155, 158, 
160, 167, 203-204, 216, 218, 235, 
239, 243, 244 

Opposition to restriction, 201-202 

Orth, S. P., 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 20 

Otis, H. G., 29 

Overseas examinations, 41-42, 102, 
117-118, 184-192 

Passenger cases, 63-67, 74-78 

Paupers, deportation to colonies, 12; 
deportation to the States, 36-44; 
Mass. resolution of 1836, 37; Sen- 
ate address of John Davis, 37-38; 
conditions in American cities, 39; 
Congressional resolutions, 40; 
consular reports, 40-44; statistics, 
51-57, 76-77, 120 

Penn, William, 7-8 

People V. Compagnie Generale 
Trans-Atlantique, 80-81, 88 

Periods of American immigration, 

Perry, M. C, 308 

Phelan, J. D, 319-321 

Philippine Islands, 109-110 

Picture brides, 312, 326 

Police power, State regulation un- 
der, 35-36 

Political phases, 33, 34, 45, 47-50 

Popenoe, P., 229 

Population, increase of, 1-2 

Preferred classes under quotas, 145, 

Presidential campaigns of 1844 and 

1852. 47-50 
Presidential powers in emergencies, 


Prigg V. Commonwealth of Penn- 

svlvania, 72-73 
Proper, E. E., 15, 16, 17, 21 



&tml powers of the President 
concerning, 98 . 

?58-262; legislation on, 1^2 181- 
182, 183, 254-258; comparison oi 
laws on, 253 

Reed, D. A., 271, 279-281, 333, 334, 

Reed, J. A., 279-281 
Registration of aliens, 301-302 
ReFatives of immigrants, 173-1/6, 

R^i - " 

17, 45-48 
Re Simone, 97 
Roberts, K. L., 252 

ItfJk Theodore, 102-103, 3(^, 

314, 328, 332, 351 
Root, Elihii, 217 ^.o 01Q 
Ross, E. A., 7, 8 11, 218-219 

Russian immigration, 

Safford, M. V., 223-224 
Scotch-Irish 5 7 


Sedgwick, T., 29 

Sherman Rjger 28 

Shipstead, IL, 275, 282 

Sitgreaves, S 30 

Smith, K. iviayo, ^, _q 

Smith V. Turner, 63-67, 74-7», /y 

Smuggling, 156 219-220 
Socialists, opposition to, 49, 2iy 


SociaUsm, fear of, 49 
Solicitation of immigration, 95 96 
Act of 1864, 85 

State legislation, 35-36, 74, 75 7h 

Steerage legislation, 15, 83-85, U. 

120, 133-134 
Stella, A., 250-251 
Stephens, W. D., 326 
Students, immigrant, i/^ 
Sweeney, A., 232 

Taft W H., 115, 123, 124 
Taxation of undesirable immigrant 

14 15, 74, 79-80 
Travel permits, 177-179; cases, 1/8. 

179; fees from, 1/9 
Tsurumi, Y., 346-349 

T^t^lclLo V. Williams 199 
U S exrel. Berlm v Rodgers 140 
U. S. ex rel. Diamond v. Uhl, 1.8 
Tj S V. Johnson, 87 
U'. S'. V. Ju Toy, 102 

Veterans, alien, 140, 172 
Visas, 184-194 

Walker, Francis A., 219 

Wallis V. United States ex rel. 

Mannara 127 
Ward, Robt. l^eC. 232 27U 
Warne, F. J., 33, 34, 46, 57 
Washington, George, 23-24 
Webster, Daniel, 31-3i , • ^g^^ior 

114 120, 127-128, 136 
Whitfield et al. V Hanges, 140 

AVilson, James, 61 216-2r 
Wilson, Woodrow, 123, 124, ^lo 

Woolston, H., 238 



Public Library 
ibrary, Copley Square 

Division of 
je and Research Services 

Social Sciences 

le Date Dte Card in the packet indi- 
fates the dale on or before which this 
)ook should fee returned to the Library. 

Please do no| remove cards from this